Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Public Petition

Trillick Agriculture Office

Mr Speaker: Mr Maurice Morrow has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg leave to present a petition relating to the proposal by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to close the agriculture office at Trillick in County Tyrone. The petitioners — farmers and local clergy of all denominations — are concerned at the implications of such a closure not only on the Trillick area but also on the entire west Tyrone area, north Fermanagh and parts of south Tyrone.
Local farmers who use this office extensively for advice and form-filling believe strongly that its retention is extremely important. Several farmers in County Fermanagh use the Trillick office, and its closure will further inconvenience that rural community. The petition has been signed by 216 farmers and six local clergy.
Mr Morrow moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and send a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.

Mr Oliver Gibson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do the rules of the Assembly not permit any support to be given to such a petition?

Mr Speaker: Standing Orders do not permit any comment with regard to the presentation of petitions. This is the first occasion on which a petition has been presented, and it has been presented in accordance with Standing Orders.

North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional Format

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in institutional format held on 17 December 2001.

Rt Hon David Trimble: We wish to make the following statement on the inaugural institutional format meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which took place in Parliament Buildings, Belfast, on 17 December 2001. The Deputy First Minister and I participated in the meeting, and the Irish Government were represented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Brian Cowen. The meeting in institutional format flows from strand two of the Belfast Agreement, which provides that the Council will meet
"in an appropriate format to consider institutional or cross-sectoral matters (including in relation to the EU) and to resolve disagreement".
The first meeting in this format offered a useful opportunity to take stock of the functioning of the Council in its first two years of operation. The Council discussed a range of institutional and cross-sectoral issues. Given that this was the first meeting, many of the issues raised will require further consideration, which will be taken forward by officials who will develop proposals for consideration by the Council in due course.
With regard to arrangements in the transport sector, the Council agreed that officials from both Administrations and the joint secretariat should explore the possibility of the next sectoral meeting on transport concentrating on road safety issues. In parallel with this, the Deputy First Minister and I will want to consider how best to take forward the strategic transport issues identified in the original work programme confirmed by the Council.
The Council noted the work undertaken and the complexities that have arisen in pursuing a transfer of the existing functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the Lights Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. It agreed that officials should review the matter further and offer advice to the next meeting of the Council in institutional format.
A paper setting out the existing areas of co-operation between the two Administrations that do not fall within the current North/South Ministerial Council work programme was noted and discussed in broad terms. The Council agreed that officials from both Administrations and the joint secretariat should consider areas of co-operation further to see whether it would be appropriate to bring them within the ambit of the North/South Ministerial Council and offer advice to the next meeting of the Council in institutional format.

Mr Mark Durkan: Progress to date on a range of cross-sectoral issues affecting the six North/South bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd, which were established under the agreement, was acknowledged by the Council. These include areas such as budgetary arrangements, accountability matters including the preparation of corporate plans and annual reports, pension schemes, audit arrangements and freedom of information.
The Council recommended the budgetary provisions for 2002 for the six North/South bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd and the contributions from the Executive and the Irish Government on which it had given an opinion at the plenary meeting on 30 November 2001. This had also included indicative projections for 2003 and 2004. The total budget for the North/South bodies in 2002 will amount to £54·37 million or S92·07 million, and the budget for Tourism Ireland Ltd will amount to £26·78 million or S45·33 million.
The Council had a preliminary and helpful exchange of views about arrangements for consideration of EU issues to reflect paragraph 17 of strand two of the agreement. The Council agreed that further work should be undertaken by a working group that would report to the next meeting of the Council in institutional format. Ministers noted the work undertaken by a working group of officials from both Administrations set up after the September 2000 plenary meeting to undertake a study to consider the establishment of an independent consultative forum as set out in paragraph 19 of strand two.
The Council agreed that such a forum should be based on a formal interaction between structures representative of civil society in Northern Ireland and in the South. The Council agreed that the working group should now consult the Northern Ireland Civic Forum and the social partners participating in the central review mechanism of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, with a view to bringing forward detailed proposals for consideration at the next meeting of the Council in plenary format in May.
The first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in institutional format addressed a range of important issues. It was a constructive and useful start in taking forward matters raised in the agreement and addressing problems that have arisen in the implementation of the bodies and areas of co-operation agreed on 18 December 1998 and ratified by the Assembly on 15 February 1999.
After the Council meeting, Ministers launched the first annual report of the North/South Ministerial Council. The report contains a helpful commentary on the operation of the Council and the North/South bodies during their first year of existence. It underlines, in tangible terms, the potential mutual benefit emerging across many sectors from North/South co-operation for all of the people throughout the island. Copies of the annual report were placed in the Assembly Library prior to the institutional format meeting on 17 December.
The Council agreed that its next meeting in institutional format would be held in the South in April 2002. A copy of the communiqué issued following the meeting was placed in the Assembly Library immediately afterwards.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the report and ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to accept our congratulations on the significant first steps taken on the independent consultative forum provided for in the Good Friday Agreement. I urge them to proceed further and encourage the establishment of a joint North/South interparliamentary forum, which the agreement also asked us to consider.

Rt Hon David Trimble: As Mr ONeill noted, we have taken steps towards making arrangements for a consultative arrangement, North and South. Given that the agreement referred to a consultative arrangement to bring in those with particular interests in social, economic and cultural matters, the obvious starting point in Northern Ireland seemed to be the Civic Forum. That forum has been established to be representative of those sectors, and it should be representative of civil society outside the elected bodies.
The equivalent range of bodies that have been brought together under the heading "social partners" in the Republic of Ireland is the other natural starting point. At this stage, we are encouraging discussion between the Civic Forum and the social partners in the Republic of Ireland about how they can interact to provide a consultative arrangement with regard to the North/South Ministerial Council.
The position with regard to an interparliamentary body, which is also foreshadowed in the agreement, both in North/South and east/west terms, is that the existing Anglo-Irish interparliamentary body has grabbed the initiative and run. It has almost tried to constitute itself as being the relevant body for both elements of this issue. That is not fully in accordance with what had been foreshadowed in the agreement.
We must find an opportunity to examine this in a constructive and coherent way so that the aspect that was foreshadowed in the agreement is put in place to bring the interparliamentary arrangements under the aegis of the existing structures in the British-Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council. The matter was touched on at the institutional format meeting, and it is something that we intend to re-examine.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome this meeting, and I also welcome Mr ONeill’s call for the establishment of a North/South forum for elected members of the Oireachtas and MLAs and MPs in the North.
In the light of Micheál Martin’s strategy document for future health delivery in the rest of Ireland over the next 10 years, was future health planning discussed at the most recent meeting? What North/South co-operation is envisaged on future health planning?
I welcome the discussion on road safety planned for the April meeting. Stark signage on the roads, detailing the number of injuries and deaths that have occurred at accident black spots, also needs to be considered in places such as County Louth.

Mr Speaker: The Member has gone into substantial detail on particular problems, but the institutional format sector deals with issues at a higher level. Perhaps the Deputy First Minister can respond on that higher level.

Mr Mark Durkan: The issues are at a higher level, but they are less interesting at times than those which Mr McElduff raised. The First Minister referred to interparliamentary arrangements between the Assembly and the Oireachtas as foreshadowed in the agreement, whereas Mr McElduff referred to matters on a different footing.
A meeting of the health sector of the North/South Ministerial Council will deal with health issues, and the matters raised by Mr McElduff are appropriate to that sector. Any institutional matters that arise with regard to limitations of the arrangements constituted would be relayed through a plenary session of the North/South Ministerial Council and, if need be, picked up at the institutional format meeting. It would not, however, have been appropriate for us to deal with the Member’s points at that meeting.
We will not take specific initiatives on road safety in the institutional format, but our discussions will recognise that one area of co-operation in which little progress has been made is transport. Therefore, the important area of road safety will be ripe for early activity.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the work outlined in the statement and the report, which I read in the Library. It is encouraging for cross-border co-operation.
However, will consideration be given to more direct contact between the different working groups and the departmental Committees on areas of similar work and research, for example, on EU issues? The Committee of the Centre has already started to consider those matters.

Rt Hon David Trimble: This was an initial meeting in institutional format, and provision for discussion of EU matters is foreshadowed in a paragraph in the agreement that clearly relates to those issues. The Council has not yet been able to make significant progress on EU matters. We will ask officials to consider how the Council can be used and how its views can be reflected more fully in the European context. The EU is based on a treaty and defines its own mode of operation. Our Administration participates in EU matters through the UK representation in Europe and the UK delegation in the Council of Ministers. The Irish Government also participate directly in the Council of Ministers. A memorandum of understanding between the devolved Administration and the UK Government details how devolved issues will be taken into account at meetings of the Council of Ministers.
With regard to the North/South Ministerial Council, what is being discussed is the way in which we can exchange information and alert each other to sensitivities and priorities that may arise in order to inform the way in which the formal arrangements within the Council of Ministers operate. We are exploring the opportunities for that, and if we develop procedures for the exchange of information, we will want to ensure that there is appropriate consultation through the Assembly Committees or other appropriate channels.
One advantage of the North/South procedure is that, through reports to the Assembly, it is as transparent as we can make it. The Assembly’s confidence in the transparency of the arrangements is reflected by the way in which so many Members are content to leave the operation of the arrangements to us.

Mr Derek Hussey: The First Minister will be aware — and the Deputy First Minister will be more than aware — of the difficulties that exist in marrying together strategic North/South transport issues. Is there an element of safety in concentrating on road safety issues, given the particular ministerial responsibility in this Administration? The marrying together of transport issues should be brought forward via the Department for Regional Development. How do the considerations of the North/ South Ministerial Council meeting connect with those at British- Irish Council level, where we are taking the lead on transport matters?

Mr Mark Durkan: Road safety merits significant attention from the Administrations in both jurisdictions. The respective Departments have co-operated and have made efforts to raise awareness of the issue through advertising. We must work to make that more effective. The issue is being progressed on its own terms and merits.
We share the concern that more work has not been done at North/South level on transport, which is a designated area of co-operation, not least on strategic matters. Nevertheless, it has not prevented us from creating a situation where the Executive have been able to commit resources to the improvement of the Larne to Dundalk route. That will complement improvements on the Dublin to Dundalk road on the Southern side. The issues must be examined, given that they involve significant areas of infrastructure investment, which is significant and challenging for both Administrations.
The aftermath of 11 September has transport implications, especially for air links. It will affect not only our tourist industry but also business and market access. That does not concern only the North and the South; it affects other Administrations within the British- Irish Council. Transport, for which this Administration was given the lead in the British-Irish Council, touches on many issues at many levels. We are working to ensure that we make the most of our responsibilities and of the opportunities that exist through the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The final paragraph of the First Minister’s statement states:
"A paper setting out the existing areas of co-operation between the two Administrations that do not fall within the current North/ South Ministerial Council work programme was noted and discussed in broad terms".
Which areas were discussed?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am glad that the Member raised that question, for two reasons. First, it may be that the DUP, since the failure of its legal challenge, now recognises the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister by asking them questions. The House is glad to note that development.
Secondly, comments by DUP spokespersons after the institutional format meeting revealed that they did not understand the position with regard to co-operation in the North/South Ministerial Council. I will explain that position for those DUP Members who fail singularly to understand it. Co-operation with the Council happens in two different categories: those matters that are jointly administered — the areas of the six implementation bodies — and the matters on which there is interdepartmental co-operation. When the Council was formed, six areas of interdepartmental co-operation were identified.
Much interdepartmental co-operation falls outside the ambit of the North/South Ministerial Council. Those numerous areas of co-operation were developed before, and during, direct rule. The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister obtained a report of some 30 pages which lists the areas of interdepartmental co-operation. Officials have been asked to examine that report, to offer advice and to consider further whether it would be appropriate to bring those areas of co-operation within the ambit of the Council. That would result in considerable advantages, which the DUP would welcome: at present, those areas of interdepartmental co-operation that are outside the Council’s ambit are not subject to transparency or reportage and are not brought before the Assembly. If they are brought within the ambit of the Council, there will be accountability.
Among the areas that are outside the ambit of the North/South Ministerial Council is energy, including the recent announcements regarding electricity and North/ South gas interconnections. Environmental co-operation includes the disposal of clinical waste through facilities in Dublin, Cork and Antrim. An industrial pollution and radiochemical inspectorate has been working jointly with relevant bodies in the South on emergency planning and environmental monitoring issues.
In higher education there is collaboration within the university and research sector through the funding of joint projects. In the area of health and social services there has been co-operation in nursing, dentistry and human resources, involving the exchange of information and the secondment of a senior social services official to assist in the establishment of an inspectorate in the South. On social and community issues there has been co-ordination of social security provisions, involving official-level co-operation through a liaison group that brings together the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in the Republic of Ireland and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland. It might be appropriate to bring such co-operation under the ambit of the North/South Ministerial Council to ensure accountability. I am sure that the DUP would not wish to escape accountability on that aspect of the Department for Social Development’s responsibility.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I had intended to ask whether issues such as energy and higher education were being considered for further co-operation. However, the First Minister has already answered my question in his statement.

Mr Mark Durkan: When the original areas of co-operation between North and South were established, it was decided that any new areas would have to be agreed by the Assembly and the Oireachtas. Any adjustments or additions to those areas of co-operation must be done properly under the auspices of an institutional format. Any outcome or decision would then be brought before the Chamber and the Oireachtas respectively.
As well as considering the existing areas of agreement, it is important to look at how well they are progressing and whether any due adjustments are needed. The House has already reflected on some of the obvious issues in relation to Irish Lights. If the functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights are not to be continued, that will raise the issues of how that area is to be dealt with and whether the functions should be transferred to another body.
It was agreed at the meeting in institutional format that officials should look at other areas of co-operation and not just the existing areas. As the First Minister outlined, several active areas of co-operation have been pursued outside the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council. Issues emerging on cross-sectoral and interdepartmental bases may also be considered. We have made it clear in the initial meeting in the institutional format that we will ensure that we maximise returns from co-operation and the potential for sensible co-operation, which is in everyone’s interest.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the report. What are the complexities in pursuing a transfer of functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission? Legislation in respect of the Loughs Agency is not in effect, yet it has been two years since its inception. Was the effect of that on the fishing industry in Lough Foyle discussed?
Will the strategic transport issues identified in the original work programme address the lack of progress in the roads infrastructure in the north-west? Was the question of joint finance to address the deficiencies there discussed?

Rt Hon David Trimble: There is a cross-border dimension to roads in the north-west of Northern Ireland, and they will be considered through the main roads programme. As the Deputy First Minister mentioned, strategic transport matters are related more to the route from Dublin through Dundalk, Newry and Belfast to Larne, which then connects to transport across the Irish Sea to Scotland and beyond. Strategic routes will be looked at only in that way, and, as the statement said, officials will carry that work forward. We will also be looking at how strategic issues can be carried forward. It is also necessary, as was pointed out in an earlier statement, to relate that to what is done in the British-Irish Council for strategic routes that go across the Irish Sea through Great Britain to Europe. We must look at all aspects of that.
The body set up to deal with loughs and lights is organised into two agencies. One agency deals with Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle. As the Member said, legislation has been enacted and is proceeding. It was originally envisaged that there would be a separate agency within the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission that would deal with the Commissioners of Irish Lights. However, the problem as regards that body is rather complex and involves the history of the organisation. It is not a purely Irish body. It operates within a British Isles context and involves authorities in Whitehall, particularly the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Consequently there are east-west issues involved — it is not purely a North/South matter. This was an oversight at the time that the agreement was made; we did not have all the technical information on the Commissioners of Irish Lights that has subsequently become available.
There are east/west issues there, and there are financial issues as well. There would be some serious financial consequences if the existing arrangements were to change, so we are looking at whether there is a better way of handling the lights issues. We do not want to disturb existing arrangements, which are working very effectively on the provision of lights around all of the Irish Sea coast and in regard to local interests. It may not be appropriate to explore the financial aspects at the moment.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I welcome the statement, but can the Minister assure us that the report on the obstacles to mobility will be made available to Members of the Assembly? Can he assure us that it will be published promptly? I point out that at the North/South Ministerial Council plenary meeting on 30 November it was agreed that the report should be published. It is now 15 January.

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member is correct in his observation that it was agreed at the plenary meeting to publish the report and also to conduct a full consultation on it. That is the intention. The report was carried out on the initiative of the Northern Administration, and, given the effort put into it, we want to ensure that publication does take place. The joint steering group will meet later this week to finalise arrangements for publication. We are encouraging prompt publication, so that the consultation exercise can begin and views on the worth and merits of the issues, problems and possibilities identified in the report can be expressed. We want to ensure that all the representative bodies which handle the interests of consumers, workers and users in relation to a range of issues covered in the report will be included in the consultation process. We are particularly conscious of the interest of Assembly Members, and they will be the first people on this side of the border to receive copies of the report.

Ms Mary Nelis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not normally take points of order during questions to Ministers.

Ms Mary Nelis: I fear that my question has not been answered. When I asked — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order if a Minister has not answered a question to the satisfaction of a Member. Ministers are asked questions, and they may respond. Members are frequently not satisfied with the responses given by Ministers — for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes the Ministers are not satisfied with their answers either, but that is another matter. It is not a point of order.

Mr Maurice Morrow: In his half of the contribution, Mr Trimble said — and I follow on from my Colleague Oliver Gibson — that the Council agreed that officials from both Administrations and the joint secretariat should consider areas of co-operation further and see if it would be appropriate to bring them within the ambit of the North/South Ministerial Council and offer advice to the next meeting of the Council in institutional format. That will come as no comfort to the majority of Unionists, who are opposed to those quangos — the unaccountable North/South bodies — because it must be clearly understood that the House cannot amend anything done by those bodies.
It was also reported in December that a budget of £54·07 million had been approved for the North/South bodies. Is Mr Trimble telling us today that there is going to be further expenditure on, and expansion of, those unaccountable quangos? Does he not agree that the moneys spent in that area would be much better spent on Craigavon Area Hospital in his Upper Bann constituency, where patients cannot have medical care?
There is little comfort in his statement. It seems to me, and to those whom I represent, that there is no limit to the funding that will be made available to this unaccountable quango. Surely that is of great concern to him, as it is to every right-thinking Unionist in Northern Ireland.

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is a shame that the Member has introduced such a farrago of nonsense in the guise of a question. The Member knows better. Having been in a ministerial post himself, he knows about the existing co-operation arrangements that have been in place for some time.
I referred to the co-operation arrangements between the Department for Social Development and the equivalent ministry in the Republic of Ireland. I could also have mentioned the week-long summer school that has been held for the past two years — first in Queen’s University Belfast and then in Trinity College Dublin — at which officials from the Department for Social Development meet officials from the Republic of Ireland to focus on issues of mutual interest, share ideas and participate in a programme together. That is what the Department for Social Development has been doing, but it has not reported that to the Assembly. It has not acted in an accountable way.
It is not any additional co-operation that has been referred to here at all. What would be additional would be the accountability arrangements that would be here. Reports would be made to the Assembly if it came under the aegis of the North/South Ministerial Council. Furthermore, there would be, through the Executive, a requirement for the Department for Social Development to report its proposals in advance to the Executive. At the moment the Department for Social Development does not do that. Therefore we have the former Minister introducing, by way of a question, many attempts to make prejudicial comments when, in fact, he is trying to continue to cover up his actions and those of his Colleagues.

Mr Speaker: Order. Time is up for questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

North/South Ministerial Council: Language

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council’s sectoral meeting on language held on 7 December 2001.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I wish to report on the third meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in language sectoral format on Friday 7 December 2001 in the Slieve Donard Hotel, Newcastle. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Ms Bairbre de Brún and I attended the meeting. Ms Máire Ní Chochláin TD, Minister of State, represented the Irish Government. This report has been approved by Ms de Brún and is also made on her behalf.
The meeting opened with a progress report on the activities of the body by the joint chairperson of the language body, Maighréad Uí Mhairtín, the acting chief executive of Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch (the Ulster-Scots Agency), Mr Stan Mallon, and the acting chief executive of Foras na Gaeilge (the Irish Language Agency), Mr Michael de Hál.
The Council considered the draft equality scheme for the body and approved the submission of the scheme to an eight-week public consultation process. The Council approved the draft targeting social need action plans for the two agencies and their submission to a public consultation process.
As it has been 40 years since the last official review of Irish grammar and spelling, the Council agreed that it was now timely to consider a review of the requirements of the language. The Council, therefore, invited Foras na Gaeilge, whose statutory functions include responsibility for the development of dictionaries and terminology, to take a lead role in the consultative process with a view to bringing proposals to the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on the steps necessary for a review of the official standard of written Irish. As part of that process, Foras na Gaeilge will consult appropriate individuals, groups and organisations.
The Council approved codes of conduct for the board members of Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulster- Scotch. A code of conduct for the staff of Foras na Gaeilge was also approved. A code of conduct for the staff of Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch will be submitted when the agency recruits its full staff complement. Integrated codes of conduct for the members of the Language Body and another for staff will be submitted to a future meeting of the Council.
The Council also approved the selection process for the recruitment of a chief executive for Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. It noted the resignation of Ms Lyn Franks from the board of Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch and appointed Mr Éamon Ó Domhnaill as her replacement.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the report, despite its being scant on detail. What was the expenditure for Foras na Gaeilge for the past year? Was there any discussion about an increase in its budget?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Funding for the North/South Language Body is on the record. The funding for Irish is as follows: £10·12 million for this financial year; and £10·55 million for the next one.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I thank the Minister for his statement. Sometimes we must have mundane administrative meetings such as this. A great deal of administrative work was done. Can the Minister tell us more about the review of the official standard of written Irish? That will be largely welcomed. Will it add to the accessibility problems? How long will the review take, and what details are available?
What resource allocations are proposed for both agencies for the financial year starting in April? Can the Minister outline the key objectives and programmes that the allocations will deliver?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The funding is on the record. Funding for the North/South Language Body for 2001 amounted to £11·41 million. In 2002 it will be £11·97 million. Northern Ireland’s contribution for 2002 will be £3·71 million, which is a rise of just over £200,000. The Irish language will receive £10·55 million, and Ulster Scots will receive £1·42 million. The funding relates to corporate plans. The Ulster-Scots Agency produced a three-year corporate plan last year and is now reviewing that in the light of its experience — it is a new body, working in this area.
Foras na Gaeilge was already functioning as a section of the Governments on both sides of the border. There has been an amalgamation and an increase in activity. The old Bord na Gaeilge has gone — Foras na Gaeilge has taken its place and is functioning well. However, it has had to change its chief executive. The previous chief executive retired, and Foras na Gaeilge is going through the process of recruiting someone for that key post. The process will be completed soon, and a number of things will flow from there — for instance, Foras na Gaeilge will fill its staff complement.
It has been 40 years since a review of Irish was carried out, and it is appropriate that a review should be done now. Language evolves, and it is important that the body keep up to date on text and grammar, and so on. Its focus is on keeping the language relevant, and the work that it is about to undertake is important. It is interesting to note that that is also the focus of Tha Boord o Ulster- Scotch, and it too is beginning that process.

Dr Ian Adamson: I believe that Gaelic is an integral part of the heritage of Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure us that Ulster Gaelic will be given its rightful place in the deliberations of Foras na Gaeilge — particularly the Gaelic of Donegal, west Tyrone and Rathlin Island? As with Ullans in Ulster Scots, there would be little use for a written official standard of Irish if the living streams of Gaelic were allowed to dry up. I commend the work of Barry McElduff in his brave attempts to preserve the authentic Ulster Gaelic of west Tyrone. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: It is clear that most Members agree with Dr Adamson that Gaelic, in common with Ulster Scots, is a key part of our linguistic heritage. These islands are blessed with a strong linguistic heritage and culture, and, as Dr Adamson said, it is important that we do not allow that to dry up. That is the focus of the work of Foras na Gaeilge, in respect of Gaelic. As far as the different nuances in Ulster Gaelic and other forms of Gaelic are concerned, Foras na Gaeilge must use its expertise to address that matter. The Gaelic language has been standardised since the 1930s, and that was important when formally teaching the language in schools. As we are now developing a new text, or reviewing the current text, there is an opportunity to take on board the points that have been raised.

Mr David Hilditch: The Minister has mentioned the recruitment process underway in Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. Can he tell me when the new chief executive and the full complement of staff will be appointed? How will staffing levels in Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch compare with those of the Irish Language Agency?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The board is in the process of recruiting a full-time chief executive. It currently has a stand-in, temporary chief executive, Mr Stan Mallon, and I have no doubt that he is keeping the agency on the right track. The Ulster-Scots Agency is functioning well and has performed a number of important tasks, particularly with regard to cultural activities, linguistic development and education. In partnership with the University of Ulster, it opened the world’s first Institute of Ulster- Scots Studies in January 2001.
The recruitment process is ongoing. I am not sure when a permanent chief executive will be appointed, but the agency is aware of the urgent need to make that appointment, and from that will flow a number of other matters, including the appointment of more full-time staff. The agency is required to draw up terms and conditions and job descriptions, and so on, and that will be a key role for the chief executive. However, it is important to stress that that has not arrested the development of the Ulster-Scots Agency, which is functioning well.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It has been said that it is 40 years since the last review of Irish grammar and spelling. The Minister may have answered this question, but are there proposals to do the same for Ulster Scots? The last thing we want is for it to be left behind in the development of dictionaries and terminologies. Is there a similar proposal for Ulster Scots?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have already referred to the fact that the Ulster-Scots Agency is aware of the need to make progress with text and grammar. It is largely an oral tradition, although some of it has been written down. The agency is in the process of recording that oral tradition — formally writing it down and producing a text, grammar and dictionary. A mapping exercise is beginning, or will soon start, which will allow a text base to be developed for the first time. The agency is well aware of this, and it will be ongoing.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I thank the Minister for his statement and warmly welcome the official review of Irish grammar and spelling. I would like to see the appointment of more Irish language teachers and special language counsellors in Northern Ireland to assist young people seeking to learn Irish. I also ask that pressure be brought to bear on the BBC to enhance regional autonomy and promote the development of local writing and production, including those in Irish and Ulster Scots.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The appointment of Irish-language teachers is a matter more appropriate to the Department of Education, and the Member should address those concerns to that Department. I do not have any authority over the appointment of, or provision for, more teachers. The BBC is a reserved matter. However, it is important to say that there is an Irish language television and film production pilot at an advanced stage of development. The first course is expected to start in February 2002. That is one of the undertakings that we have given in the past, and work is ongoing. There is also the extension of TG4 to Northern Ireland, which is a reserved matter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is to be welcomed that RTE will be available throughout Northern Ireland through satellite dishes, and that will assist somewhat the Member’s concerns. The BBC is specifically a reserved matter, and questions about it should be addressed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or to the BBC directly.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The Minister said that there is £10·5 million for Irish and £1·42 million for Ulster Scots. A recent BBC2 programme indicated that in the Irish programme only Northern Irish was being dealt with. Does this mean that, at present, four different kinds of Irish are being spoken in schools and other institutions? Will this lead to four different dictionaries of standard Irish? His report seems to be attempting to form or "hermaphroditise" the four existing trends in Irish into some form of standard that may be acceptable to none. Is the £10·5 million going to be wasted on this?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The money for the North/South Language Body that Mr Gibson referred to is a matter of record. The Ulster-Scots Agency and Irish language contribution by Foras na Gaeilge operate on an all- Ireland basis. However, it is important to note that 2002 shows a 12-fold increase in the funding for Ulster Scots compared to the level of funding prior to devolution three years ago, so there is a considerable increase in investment in that area.
As I have attempted to explain in previous answers, the Gaelic language is the responsibility of Foras na Gaeilge. It has been a standardised language since the 1930s. However, as Dr Adamson has said, there are various streams, of which Ulster Gaelic is one. However, there has been no suggestion of producing four dictionaries or of developing four languages with a text that is acceptable to no one.
There are small differences between the various forms of Irish Gaelic, and Ulster Gaelic and Munster Gaelic are interchangeable. Therefore, the Member should have no concerns that the Gaelic language might not be in good heart. Foras na Gaeilge is functioning well as the body that promotes the Irish language. It is not in the business of promoting four languages. It is in the business of promoting one language, which is Irish Gaelic.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Dr Adamson for his support for the campaign to preserve Tyrone Irish. Foras na Gaeilge should play a role in reprinting ‘Scéalta Mhuintir Luinigh’, the stories of the people of the Gaeltacht area of Tyrone, mainly Gortin and Greencastle.
Can the Minister elaborate on the progress report on Foras na Gaeilge by Ms Maighréad Uí Mhairtín? Where will the sub-office for the North be located, and when is it due to open. What are the proposed staffing levels, profile and visibility of the office? More interaction with the Irish language section of Foras na Gaeilge must be facilitated.
Finally, I welcome the lifting of the anti-democratic and illegal ban on Bairbre de Brún which prevented her from attending meetings.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Foras na Gaeilge has an office in Dublin and a sub-office in Belfast in a neutral location in the city centre. The Ulster-Scots Agency — which also has an office in Belfast — has found premises for a sub-office in Raphoe in County Donegal.
Foras na Gaeilge is recruiting a new chief executive, and it is anticipated that he or she will be in post in the near future, after which full-time staff will be recruited. I will write to the Member regarding staff numbers in Belfast and Dublin.

Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill: Final Stage

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move
That the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 15/00) do now pass.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928 to extend the shooting season for partridge for commercial purposes and to relax the current restrictions on pest rabbits. The Bill was amended at Further Consideration Stage, so the Department of the Environment must ensure that the issue of permits to net hares from the wild for the purpose of coursing does not endanger the hare population in Northern Ireland or any part thereof. I am examining how to give effect to that amendment.
I want to refer briefly to the Irish hare. The Executive and I accept the amendment and acknowledge its conservation aspirations, but I must correct the impression given to the Assembly and others that I, or my Department, have failed to implement the species action plan for the conservation of the hare. The plan, produced by my Department in conjunction with our partners — the Ulster Wildlife Trust and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, among others — was informed by the research work partly funded by my Department and carried out by Prof Montgomery and Dr Dingerkus. There is nothing in their research to suggest that the trapping of hares for organised coursing is detrimental to our hare population. It is not, therefore, listed in the plan among the main causes of the decline in the Irish hare population.
It is widely accepted that the major factor affecting the status of the Irish hare is the loss of suitable habitat. That analysis is confirmed by the work of Prof Montgomery and Dr Dingerkus. It is also confirmed in the Northern Ireland countryside survey concluded by my Department during 2000, which indicates that suitable hare habitat has decreased significantly in the past 10 years.
To take account of the threat posed by loss of habitat, the Department is working in conjunction with the Ulster Wildlife Trust — our lead partner in the action plan to conserve the hare — and several measures are under way. A key action is the plan to update the survey of the hare population in Northern Ireland. That work was scheduled for 2001, but it could not be undertaken because of foot-and-mouth disease restrictions. I am pleased to say, however, that with the lifting of the restrictions, that work will now proceed. I hope to see the results by late summer.
In addition, work is already in hand to draw up habitat action plans, which are designed to maintain and improve many priority habitats that are important for Irish hares. Those habitats will also benefit from my proposals to strengthen the legislation and management arrangements for areas of special scientific interest, which I hope will take effect over the next two years, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation through the Assembly.
I want to take the opportunity to thank Members for the extent of their interest in the Bill, particularly the support for the extension of the partridge-shooting season, which will be welcomed by country sports enthusiasts. That, together with the relaxation of controls on the shooting of pest rabbits, regulating what has been common practice for some time, demonstrates that Executive Ministers and the Assembly can and do respond to local needs and circumstances. I also want to thank the Committee for the Environment for its commitment and assistance and for its support of the Bill.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. I apologise that Mr David Ford, a member of the Committee for the Environment, is unable to be present this morning. The Alliance Party believes that the amended Bill is a better Bill than that first produced by the Department. In part, that is because the Committee carried out a detailed examination of the Bill. It is also because of the amendment on the taking of hares, which Members, led by David Ford, forced on the Minister. That amendment means that Irish hares can no longer be taken by nets for coursing, unless the Department is satisfied that there is no threat to hares in Northern Ireland.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The Minister has promised action on the species action plan for the Irish hare. There is still a great deal to be done, both by his Department and other agencies, to improve the situation for hares. However, we can now rest assured that the Department will no longer be able to issue licences for the taking of Irish hares for coursing, since there is a clear threat to hares throughout Northern Ireland. The Bill is much improved as a result of those changes. My party and I, therefore, welcome the amended Bill.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank Mr McCarthy for his comments and his acceptance of what the Department is trying to do. I can assure him that the Department is very aware of all endangered species. The difficulty of trying to match hares — if I may say so in a somewhat lighter fashion — is that it will be difficult to throw salt on their tails to count them all.
The Ulster Wildlife Trust has convened a steering group. It is co-ordinating a work programme for the action plan, which contains several measures. These include the formulation and implementation of agriculture policies which benefit the habitat required by the Irish hare; a review of and, if necessary, an increase in the level of protection given to the Irish hare in the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985; an assurance that state- owned lands are managed, where possible, with a view to conservation of Irish hares and the establishment of hare sanctuaries; the development of a strategy for the conservation and monitoring of the Irish hare, which will include repeat surveys similar to the Northern Ireland hare survey, at intervals of three to five years, until 2010 to measure its success; the provision of advice to land managers and others on hare conservation; and the promotion of general research into the biology, ecology and population dynamics of the Irish hare.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Game Preservation (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 15/00) do now pass.

Report of the Public Accounts Committee

Mr Donovan McClelland: I call the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr Billy Boyle.

Mr Billy Bell: Mr Bell.

Mr Donovan McClelland: My apologies.

Mr Billy Bell: The bells are not ringing today, I’m afraid.
I beg to move
That this Assembly takes note of the Public Accounts Committee ‘Composite Report on Issues Dealt with by Correspondence by the Committee’ (3/01/R) and of the Committee Reports (1/99, 1/00R to 6/00R and 1/01/R to 2/01/R)) and the Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda of Reply (NIA 22/00, 32/00, 37/00, 51/00, 59/00, 92/00, 99/00, 27/01 and 29/01).
I welcome the opportunity to debate, for the first time, the important work undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee since it was established in January 2000. I am pleased that the new Minister of Finance and Personnel, Dr Seán Farren, is here for the debate. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and hope that we can work together and continue to develop the excellent relationship that the Committee had established with his predecessor, Mr Mark Durkan, and his officials.
It is important that Members have a clear understanding of the role of the Public Accounts Committee. I also hope that by reviewing the published reports of the Committee we will be able to demonstrate to Members the relevance of the Committee’s work to the overall objective of improving standards of administration and performance in Northern Ireland’s Departments and agencies.
What is the Public Accounts Committee all about? Its role is set out in simple terms in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act provides that the Committee’s role is to consider accounts, and reports on accounts, laid before the Assembly by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.
I can understand how anyone reading this provision could easily come to the conclusion that the work of the Public Accounts Committee would consist of a series of meetings that would continually become bogged down in the study of a range of complex and detailed departmental accounts, and that little would be achieved. Such an assumption could not be further from the truth, and there are several reasons why that is so. First, we are fortunate that the Comptroller and Auditor General is the Assembly’s independent auditor and an officer of the Assembly. He heads the Northern Ireland Audit Office and is responsible to the Assembly for the audit of central Government Departments and most of their sponsored bodies.
In performing this role, he provides independent assurance, information and advice to the Assembly on the proper accounting regularity and propriety of expenditure, revenue and assets, and on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which public sector bodies use their resources.
The Comptroller and Auditor General’s independence is fully safeguarded in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act made it clear that he would be totally independent in the exercise of his functions and could not
"be subject to the direction or control of any Minister or Northern Ireland department or of the Assembly".
The importance of that provision cannot be overstated. I am sure that all Members will join me in paying tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General for the important role that he has played as we have sought to come to terms with our new responsibilities under devolution.
It is also appropriate to place on record my thanks, and that of the Public Accounts Committee, to the Committee Clerk and the Assistant Clerk. The success of the Committee has been in no small measure due to the work that they have done.
A second reason that the work of the Public Accounts Committee is both interesting and productive is that it has concentrated on value-for-money reports, which the Northern Ireland Audit Office has produced, based on its assessment of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which public sector bodies use their resources. Usually, 10 to 12 such reports are produced annually. Members have often heard me say in the House and in the media that before devolution those reports were sent to Westminster to gather dust on its shelves. I have repeated that statement due to frustration; I think that all those important reports were not fully acted on during the past 30 years. Fortunately, with the advent of devolution, that situation has changed.
The Committee has been instrumental in bringing about that change. Shortly after its establishment, the Committee decided that all Audit Office value-for- money reports would be considered in detail. That consideration is carried out either by correspondence with the relevant accounting officers or by taking oral evidence from them in a public session. That approach has led to greater financial accountability to the Assembly, and has proved particularly effective.
A further reason for the Committee’s continued success is the hard work and dedication of its members. I thank them all for their support. The Committee has been able to agree that party political issues should not come before the interests of the taxpayer. It is interesting to note that all the reports that we have produced have been unanimous. That is not because of fudges in the wording, conclusions or recommendations, but because we have been able to keep the interests of the taxpayer to the forefront of our deliberations.
The unanimity of our reports has meant that Departments and the Executive have been faced with conclusions that are difficult to ignore or avoid. I am pleased to say that the vast majority of our recommendations have been accepted and acted on.
When the Committee was set up in January 2000 it faced a formidable task. Mr David Davis, former Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, speaking during the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill in July 1998, said that
"the history of the management of public sector spending in Northern Ireland is not very good".
He also quoted the Rt Hon Member for Upper Bann, First Minister David Trimble, who described it as "ghastly". I hope that that assessment has changed as a result of the Committee’s work.
I turn to the reports produced by the Committee. I shall deal first with the composite report published today, which represents a departure from the Committee’s normal procedures and is a novel approach in the United Kingdom. It is usual when the reports are published for the relevant Departments to have two months to reply to the conclusions and recommendations in the form of a Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum of reply. That ensures that the reports are not subjected to knee-jerk reaction and that a considered response is given to the carefully drafted conclusions and recommendations. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to have a debate on a report in the Chamber before a formal reply had been published. That is not possible. However, the Committee has decided to deal with the eight topics solely on the basis of written evidence contained in the report. The process, therefore, has been completed and a Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum of reply is not required.
Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to go through all eight topics, but I would like to draw their attention to some issues that are raised in the report. Members will have noted on pages 8 and 9 of the composite report that the Committee has drawn attention to the loss of £2,161,000 in Vote 3, IDB Industrial Support and Regeneration account. The loss is due to the poor design and construction of a factory in Campsie industrial estate, Londonderry. That was largely due to the failure of the design consultants to make adequate provision in the design of the building for the internal controlled levels for temperature and humidity required to spin yarn. The IDB was required to carry out the remedial work at a cost of £3·5 million, but it could negotiate a settlement figure of only £1·35 million, which was set at the level of professional indemnity cover held by the design consultants. Further litigation would almost certainly have put the defendants out of business, with no guarantee of any greater sum of recovery.
The Committee expects lessons to be learnt from this case, especially the need for Departments to ensure that design consultants, architects and contractors have the appropriate level of insurance cover relevant to the value and complexity of the building to be constructed. I welcome the fact that the Department of Finance and Personnel has pointed that out to departmental finance officers.
Vote 4 on page 9 raises an important issue with regard to clawback arrangements as part of the privatisation of public assets. That issue was raised in the context of a shortfall in anticipated clawback as a result of disposals by Northern Ireland Electricity of part of its Danesfort headquarters and its shareholding in the ShopElectric retail chain of 34 shops. Northern Ireland Electricity calculated that the clawback due was £250,000, although the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment calculated the total amount due to be £6·8 million. Therefore, the matter is currently at arbitration.
The Committee attaches great importance to Departments and public bodies ensuring that they have effective arrangements for clawback and vigorously pursuing any sums due. The Committee has, therefore, asked to be updated when the arbitration process is complete. The Committee has also requested the Comptroller and Auditor General to review all other aspects of the follow-up to the 1994 report on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity and, if appropriate, to produce a further report.
I want to turn to some of the reports that the Committee has published over the past 18 months. The first report that we dealt with was on road safety in Northern Ireland. The Committee decided to put this issue to the top of its agenda because of the appalling road safety record here. Some of the key issues arising from the report were: the cost to the economy for road deaths and injury of £574 million — a staggering figure; the need for a comprehensive road safety plan that is driven strongly by a single lead organisation and for the plan to include clear and challenging targets — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have sent someone to find out what is causing the background noise. This should not be happening while you are on your feet, Mr Bell, and I apologise.

Mr Billy Bell: Thank you for your concern, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a bit off-putting, but I do not attach any blame to you for that.
The Committee also wants to reduce significantly the gap between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in deaths and serious injury. The Department had proposed setting a target of a 20% reduction in casualty rates on our roads by 2010. However, given that the target reduction in Great Britain was 40% in the same period, we have insisted that the Department set a target that will reduce significantly the gap in road casualties between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have also insisted on better co-ordination, co-operation and planning between all the agencies involved in road safety, such as the Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development, Driver and Vehicle Licensing (NI), Driver and Vehicle Testing (NI), the Roads Service, the Court Service and the police.
We still have a long way to go to improve our road safety record. However, we are now moving in the right direction. I hope that the reduction of 24 in the number of fatalities on our roads during 2001 is an improvement that can be sustained.
I want to turn to fraud in the public sector. One of the most worrying issues to emerge in the course of our work is the scale on which fraud and suspected fraud exists in the public sector, a massive waste of scarce resources. Fraud exists throughout many Departments, and it seems to be tackled differently by each Department. The public sector must rise to the challenge and combat fraud.
Our first hearing on fraud involved three cases under the National Agricultural Support Scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The first two cases involved an over-declaration of land by the applicants and a subsequent over-claim of £105,793 for livestock subsidies. In both cases the police were unable to pursue a criminal prosecution because of serious shortcomings in the Department’s system. The Committee was astonished to find that subsidies for grazing were being paid to Sir Thomas and Lady Dixon Park — subsidies that also covered the flower beds and car parks — to Annadale Embankment and to Dunmurry golf course.
Amazingly the maps used were up to 64 years old and led to the Department being unable to prosecute. The Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, or even Eason’s bookshop, would have had more up-to-date information than that.
12.00
The third case relates to several claims made by the same family. It was suspected that livestock subsidies were being claimed for animals that came from a source outside Northern Ireland. This case highlighted the direct connection between fraud and animal health issues that became all too apparent with the subsequent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland. We had grave concerns that the controls in place did not detect fraud until 1999. The Department was, again, not able to prosecute — a common theme that we have heard from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, we were encouraged by the accounting officer’s evidence that he operates zero tolerance of fraud. We will be keeping a watching brief in order to ensure that these words are translated into action.
I am endeavouring to keep to time, but the slight interruption put me off my stride a bit.
The period of direct rule did not best serve the people of Northern Ireland. During that period the creation of large, bureaucratic institutions meant that Government lost touch with the reality of people’s everyday needs in relation to healthcare, education and many other services. We have also inherited a legacy of underfunding in many vital public services. My experience as Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee has given that belief a sharper focus.
I am convinced that the problems we face can be overcome, given that the key elements of local accountability have been greatly enhanced through devolved Government. I cannot emphasise that enough. The Public Accounts Committee will play an important role in ensuring that public sector bodies are fully accountable to the Assembly.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Thank you, Mr Bell. I apologise again for the distraction during your speech.

Mr John Dallat: Before I refer to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, I wish to speak briefly in my capacity as Chairperson of the Audit Committee about that Committee’s role in the oversight and ongoing scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Audit Office given that the Public Accounts Committee takes evidence on the basis of its reports.
The Audit Committee has access to the Audit Office’s business plan and statement of accounts on an annual basis. We receive frequent updates on progress towards the planned targets and an opportunity to agree the estimates for annual expenditure from the Comptroller and Auditor General and members of his senior management team. My Committee prepares a report on this crucial area of work and lays it before the Assembly annually.
The size of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s task is considerable. In 2001-02 it is estimated that his office will audit expenditure and revenue transactions totalling over £135 billion and assets and liabilities of over £49 billion. Analysing, certifying and reporting on these accounts is all part of the service provided to the Assembly by the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team. This comprehensive service is provided at a cost of under £5 million to the public. That represents excellent value for money.
I have been impressed by the professionalism and quality of the work carried out by the Northern Ireland Audit Office. I look forward to working with it in facing the challenges ahead arising from the proposed legislation on audit and accountability and the Sharman Report.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee I would like to mention our report on school inspection. In May 2001 the permanent secretary and senior officials from the Department of Education appeared before the Committee to examine the role of school inspections.
The purpose of the session was to consider how effective school inspections have been in ensuring good quality of school performance and, in particular, in assisting an improvement in standards in schools. I am especially concerned about the literacy and numeracy levels among young people, and I selected that session for comment, as school inspection is fundamental in highlighting the reasons for a school’s performance level falling.
I asked the permanent secretary about the Department of Education’s failure to achieve the English and mathematics targets for 11-year-olds at Key Stage 2 and 14-year-olds at Key Stage 3 which were proposed in its original literacy and numeracy strategy in 1997. Given that so many pupils leave school and seek work with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills, the Public Accounts Committee made it clear that the schools inspectorate, which visits schools regularly, should have been screaming from the rooftops at the lack of improvement in standards. The inspectorate should have been telling the Department that teachers do not have the resources or the back-up to ensure that the bottom 20% get a fair deal. Instead, it bullied good teachers and let the Department off the hook for years by remaining silent.
I expressed dismay that the Department appeared to have walked away from the original targets because they were difficult to achieve. It downgraded the Key Stage 2 English and Key Stage 3 mathematics targets. Moreover, the previous Programme for Government revealed that the Department had moved the goalposts of its original strategy from 2002 to 2004. Surely this must be the only area of government in which a new Executive is promising lower achievement than we had under direct rule?
With 250,000 people aged between 16 and 64 with serious literacy and numeracy problems, the Department is behaving like the proverbial ostrich by burying its head in the sand and pretending that nothing is wrong. Against that background it is alarming that, since its response to the Committee, the Department has reduced the Key Stage 3 targets for both English and mathematics yet again.
I want to make it clear that setting targets and then reducing them when they appear difficult to achieve is not a sensible way of managing the education system. With that sort of direction from the top, it is not our pupils who are failing the literacy and numeracy test; it is the Department.
The Public Accounts Committee has made it clear that it will continue to monitor progress in that area, as will the Education Committee, I am sure. It is vital that we hold the Department to account for effective management of the improvements to the education of young people, so that no child leaves school unable to read and write to an acceptable level. That is what equality is about; it is the foundation stone of the Assembly, and the Department has been found wanting by the Public Accounts Committee.
Referring to the composite report before the House, one area that caused me particular concern was the failure of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to follow proper purchasing procedures when awarding £3·9 million worth of printing contracts. The Committee noted that, when awarding the contracts, a £64,000 bid from W&G Baird Ltd had been accepted, although it was £12,350 higher than the lowest bid, which was £51,650.
That company is connected to the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, and in the light of that, the Committee requested further information to identify how many similar cases there were. In each case, the board was requested to state the amount of the company’s bid and all lower bids, together with the reasons for rejecting the lower bids.
From the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s reply certain details emerged. Contracts awarded to W&G Baird Ltd without tendering, or where that company was the sole tenderer, amounted to £470,000·76. Contracts awarded where W&G Baird Ltd’s tender was not the lowest tender amounted to £773,312; contracts awarded where W&G Baird Ltd was the lowest bidder amounted to £137,185.
The Committee considered the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s reply to be disturbing. It revealed the extent to which substantial print contracts were awarded to W&G Baird Ltd. I was appalled to see that nearly £500,000 of printing contracts had been awarded without any competition. A further £770,000 had been awarded to the company when it had not been the lowest bidder. The Committee’s view is that the reasons cited for rejecting lower bids were not convincing.
In the light of those concerns, the Committee has asked for a further report in 12 months’ time on all printing contracts awarded since April 2000, including full details of all bids received and the basis on which contracts were awarded. Of further concern was the fact that the Department did not accept that it was undesirable to make an appointment to the board of a public body in circumstances where there was potential for a serious conflict of interest — the respective appointee’s company was carrying out substantial business with the public body.
The Committee recognised that board members who have a private sector background can bring valuable business skills to bear in the running of public bodies. It also recognised that experienced people in the hotel and catering industry should not be precluded from appointments to the board of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board because their business received grants from that organisation. However, the Committee considered there to be a clear distinction between that type of situation and making a board appointment in circumstances where the appointee’s company is carrying out substantial commercial business with the public body. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s failure to recognise that distinction smacks of extreme naivety. In the light of that, the Public Accounts Committee has recommended that guidelines on public appointments should be re-examined. The Committee will, of course, closely monitor developments in the Tourist Board for the foreseeable future.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I apologise to the Chamber for my absence at the start of the Chairperson’s speech. I was detained in my constituency.
I pay tribute to the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr Billy Bell. He has dealt with every issue fairly and in a non-partisan way. However, I remind the House that he has a hard act to follow. The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee back in 1971 was a politician of considerable standing — none other than my party leader, Dr Paisley. I also fully endorse the tribute that Mr Bell paid to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. They have provided a valuable service to the Committee and to the Assembly.
In the 18 months in which the Committee has been fully operational, I have been impressed at the range of topics that it has covered, reaching across all Executive Departments. The Committee has dealt with topics as diverse as road safety, the services provided by the pathology laboratories in the Health Service and fleet management in the Northern Ireland Fire Authority. That has undoubtedly improved accountability to the taxpayer on how public money has been spent.
Before I deal with some specific issues I want to make it clear that the Committee does not scrutinise policy or the allocation of resources. Ministers and the Executive are accountable directly to the Assembly on those issues. I emphasise that the interest of the Committee is to ensure that the Departments and their agencies are operating in an efficient manner and that they obtain good value for the money and resources entrusted to them by the Assembly.
First, I will refer to the Committee’s report on the Social Security Agency. The Committee was appalled at the enormous waste of public money by the Social Security Agency in its administration of income support benefit. This has been the sixth successive year in which the agency’s accounts have been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, demonstrating a long- term failure to reach acceptable standards of administration.
Although the Committee knew of the inherent difficulties in administering income support payments it was shocked to learn that, despite previous undertakings to the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, one in eight income support awards was incorrect. That has led to an estimated 57 million errors — an increase by 36% on the 1999 position. Taking customer error and fraud together, the loss to the taxpayer has been a staggering £45 million. That is unacceptable.
Fraud, however, has not been limited to customers. The Committee was also informed of a fraud worth £250,000 involving a member of the agency’s staff. That fraud was discovered only after a fire in a Belfast flat, when firemen found several payment books. The issue of fraud must be monitored closely.
Of further concern to the Committee were those whose assessments for benefit were undervalued and those who are unaware that they are entitled to benefit. The Social Security Agency must do more to ensure that those individuals, who are among the most vulnerable members of society, receive their proper benefit entitlement.
The Committee acknowledged that many good staff, with a genuine interest in their customers, work in local social security offices. However, it is potentially demoralising to work in an environment in which the level of error is so high. The Committee therefore encouraged the Social Security Agency to make a conscious drive to improve the quality of service. That is undoubtedly necessary, as it is in the interests of staff and claimants.
As part of its report, the Committee expressed its strong concern about the enormous waste of public money — errors amounting to £57 million. That concern about waste has been one of the reasons behind the Social Security Fraud Bill, which is aimed at reducing losses by creating improved powers to obtain information and providing for the power to remove benefits from persistent offenders.
The Social Security Agency has agreed to give more attention to targeting those who fail to claim their full benefit entitlement. To this end, it has recently introduced for pensioners shorter claim forms, reduced from 40 pages to 10. The Committee has urged the agency to investigate the potentially significant level of fraud stemming from additional benefits — sometimes known as "passport" benefits — that are available to claimants, which flows from erroneous income support awards.
The second report that I want to deal with is on river pollution in Northern Ireland. That key area failed to gain the level of priority it deserved during direct rule. In the course of the Committee’s review I was not surprised to find that the cross-departmental approach to tackling river pollution was both fragmented and lacking in cohesion.
One of our particular concerns was that the Department of the Environment’s failure to introduce charges for industrial consent in 1992 — its original target date — meant that the taxpayer had to foot a £9 million bill for running the consent operation in the intervening period. Fewer than 50% of dischargers complied with the conditions of their consent. Furthermore, as part of the former Department of the Environment, Water Service itself was a major polluter, and its activities were not fully controlled. Also, the Department of the Environment had not started the consultation process to implement the regulations on farm pollution. We are convinced that those failings sent out an unfortunate message to polluters.
This issue has generated many complaints in my Upper Bann constituency, where the response of the agencies involved has been less than satisfactory. In one case I reported that an oil flow had caused serious pollution in a Portadown river. I was horrified to find that some eight weeks later the problem had not been resolved. That is clearly unacceptable, and the Department of the Environment must do much better.
Another area of concern was that Northern Ireland was — and still is — the only part of the British Isles without an independent environmental protection body. There is, for example, the Environment Agency of England and Wales, and Scotland has the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Real independence from Government will be essential if the public are to be confident that our environment is being properly safeguarded.
On a positive note, I am pleased to see that, following the Committee’s report, the Department of the Environment has provided a progress report. Action has been taken to improve levels of compliance with industrial consents, and formal targets have been set. Consent charges are to be introduced in April 2002. Consultation is under way on the introduction of farm pollution regulations, and there has been an extension of controls over Water Service discharges. Information on the achievement of standards will be published, as we requested. However, I remain concerned that in Northern Ireland there remains a very low level of compliance with consents, and I hope that the actions taken will greatly improve the current arrangements.
I am fortunate to have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee. As a direct result of our activities we have made a positive contribution to enhancing the accountability of Northern Ireland Departments and agencies to local politicians and — most importantly — to the taxpayer. I pay tribute to the Committee’s support staff, who have been of tremendous help throughout our deliberations and without whom it would not be possible to operate.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is my intention to suspend until 2.00 pm. The Business Committee has allocated two hours to this debate and, while it is my fervent hope to allow everyone a full opportunity to speak, the timing is something that I must keep under review. We have only two hours.

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To guide Members who intend to speak, can you indicate whether speeches will have a time limit and, if so, what will that time limit be?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is a matter that I must keep under review. At the moment, I do not intend to apply a time limit. I hope that in the first round, at least, Members will have as much time as they wish. However, I must continually review the list due to the number of people who wish to add their names to it. It is too early for me to impose a specific time limit. I am sorry that I cannot be more definitive, but the situation changes continually.
The sitting was suspended at 12.26 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Mr Seamus Close: I echo the tributes that the Chairperson and other members of the Committee have paid to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff in the Northern Ireland Audit Office. They provide a high-quality service to the Committee and the Assembly and, therefore, ultimately to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland.
I am delighted to see the new Minister of Finance and Personnel in position. I have no doubt that he is ready to respond to the points that will be made in the debate. I take that as an indication of the importance that the Executive attach to the Public Accounts Committee and its work.
The Committee is well served by an efficient and resourceful Clerk, Assistant Clerk and Committee staff. They help to draw together the various strands that make the Public Accounts Committee operate as it should; they help to make a team. The Committee is a well-oiled machine, by which I mean that we operate efficiently and effectively. The Committee is under the guidance, tutelage and leadership of the Chairperson, Mr Billy Bell. Few Committees in the Assembly operate so effectively and efficiently. The Public Accounts Committee has never been without a quorum. How many other Committees could say that? That is the proof of the pudding.
I am delighted to take part in this debate. The fact that my party is not represented in the Executive allows me to speak with greater objectivity — if I dare to call it that — than most other members of the Committee, whose Colleagues sit on the Executive, whether around the table or outside the door.
Accountability is a key element of the work of the Committee. It plays a pivotal role in the balance between the Executive’s responsibility to govern and the Assembly’s responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayer, and thus the vulnerable people in society. The effectiveness of the Committee over the past 18 months owes much to the fact that it does not deal with policy. It has the responsibility of holding senior officials in Northern Ireland Departments and agencies directly accountable for the spending decisions that they make, and for implementing improvements in the services that they provide to the public.
As part of the Committee’s proceedings, these senior officials — referred to as "accounting officers" — are called before the Committee to defend their actions and explain their failures. Accounting officers have often had to explain their failure to follow the Department of Finance and Personnel’s rules and guidance. The requirement to carry out economic appraisals was blatantly ignored by the Department of Agriculture in delivering its rural development programme between 1990 and 1995. That failure meant that the long-term sustainability of many projects was jeopardised, and consequently, scarce resources in Northern Ireland were squandered.
In the case of the Irish sport horse project, which was funded by Peace I money, an economic appraisal was carried out. However, it failed to address many of the requirements of the "green book" guidance issued by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Again, the failure to address those issues resulted in the premature winding-up of that project.
In a recent hearing on the brucellosis outbreak at the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland in Hillsborough, the committee again found that there was a failure to complete an appraisal into restocking the herd. That highlights a breakdown in basic administration procedures, which appears to have been all too prevalent during the period of direct rule, when the watchdog was either sleeping or perhaps away being neutered by the vet.
I hope that with the introduction of devolved government and the increased scrutiny of Departments the management of public sector spending has improved and will continue to do so. I am reassured by the prompt action of the Department of Finance and Personnel in drawing other Departments’ attention to the need to follow rules and procedures that have been carefully drawn up to ensure the proper, efficient and effective use of scarce resources. The need for accounting officers to defend their actions to the Committee is clearly having an effect.
I am aware of a recent case where accounting officers considered that they were being asked to take action that they thought they could not defend to the Public Accounts Committee, if required to do so, on the grounds of value for money. They therefore invoked the long-standing procedure of requesting a written direction from Ministers. As a result of the automatic notification procedure in such cases, the Public Accounts Committee was informed by the Comptroller and Auditor General that the decision by Ministers last September to proceed with the gas pipeline project was taken against the written advice of officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Finance and Personnel. That project is expected to require public grants of more than £60 million, yet the investment appraisal indicated that the pipelines do not offer the prospect of achieving acceptable value for money.
We are all aware that Northern Ireland is faced with extreme pressures in its hospitals, schools and other areas where the strategic infrastructure is decaying. Many worthwhile public projects have had to be postponed or set aside, even though they have passed the investment appraisal test and are seen to offer good value for money. It is worrying, therefore, that against that background, Ministers are prepared to give a direction, contrary to the advice of officials, to commit public funds to a project that appears to offer poor value for money, even when the identifiable intangible benefits are factored into the equation.
I would like the Minister to address two issues in his response to the debate. First, the Committee has been informed that the investment appraisal for that project indicated that the cost of electricity in the Province would be increased by 0·6% for domestic consumers and by 1·4% for commercial and industrial consumers. If that information is correct — and I believe that it is — it would mean that people in Fermanagh and other parts of the Province who have no prospect of receiving a gas supply would, nevertheless, be paying for those pipelines through their electricity bills. That is unfair.
Secondly, given the massive commitment of public funds to that project, and the importance of openness and transparency, will the Minister ensure that the full investment appraisal is made available in the Assembly Library?
I would like to look to the future. My experience over the past 18 months has convinced me of how vital the service provided by the Comptroller and the Auditor General is to the Assembly. However, we face significant changes in the way that departmental and agency accounts are to be prepared and presented to the Assembly. Resource accounting, and developments on the way in which Departments plan to deliver services, will mean that it is of paramount importance that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the ability to follow taxpayers’ money, however and wherever it is spent. The audit trail must be clear and unimpeded. I therefore urge the Minister to honour the apparent commitment of his predecessor to implement fully the recommendations of the Sharman Report in the context of the proposed audit and accountability legislation.
Finally, I encourage all Members to take a closer interest in the work of the Public Accounts Committee. It would be useful for them to follow up on issues that the Committee has highlighted as having potential for improvement. I am convinced beyond any doubt that Public Accounts Committee reports could provide a springboard for the development of more joined-up scrutiny of the Departments and the Executive in the Statutory Committees and plenary sessions of the Assembly. In this way we can all contribute to serving better those whom we are elected to serve, namely the taxpayers.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Before starting, I too want to pay tribute to the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, without whose leadership we could not have got through as much work as we did over the past two sessions. As Mr Close said, this is one of the few Committees that does not have a problem with getting members to attend, and that is partly due to the fairness with which Billy Bell runs the Committee.
I want to thank the Committee Clerk and the Assistant Clerk for all the help they have given to the Committee and me throughout the past months. I also thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff, who do much hard work for the Committee members by drawing up reports and giving us invaluable private briefings before we go into public session with Departments.
One thing that struck me, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, is the lack of accountability in Departments over the past years. People have been able to make decisions without assessing a project’s value for money or even if the project was needed. Now we are getting to the heart of the issue of accountability. We have a roads system that is light years behind those in most of Europe; an inadequate public transport system, with the rail system being nothing but a token gesture; a water and sewerage system in dire need of capital input; and a Health Service that, whether some people believe it or not, is being asked to carry the legacy of the Tory trust system and all the costs associated with that. Those are major challenges which the Assembly and individual Members will hope to meet in the coming years as we attempt to redress those failings.
As a member of both the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety I want to concentrate on the section of the report that deals with executive and senior management pay, contracts and termination settlements. From the outset, the Committee shared the public concern over pay increases made to chief executives and senior managers in trusts at a time when there were problems in the Health Service as a whole. The size of the settlements made on the termination of contracts with some executive directors in some trusts, and the nature of contracts made throughout the health and personal social services in the past number of years, have also caused concern.
Our concerns also have an impact on public confidence, whether in the Health Service, the Department for Regional Development, the Department of Education or a number of Committees. When we talk about executive directors, and senior managers’ pay, we are talking about more than annual pay increases. We are talking about the whole employment package. The information gathered by the Committee confirmed that there is some justification for the public perception that some members of senior management are benefiting from fat cat pay. That should be compared with the pay for other groups in the front line of the service, such as nurses, junior doctors and domestic staff.
During the four-year period to March 2000 the chief executives of the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust and the North and West Belfast Hospitals Trust — both trusts have serious problems — received travel expenses and subsistence allowances of £37,400 and £34,383 respectively. By contrast, three chief executives in the Western Board area were paid a total of £22,401, three chief executives in the Northern Board area received a total of £3,146, and four chief executives in the Southern Board area received a total of £3,249.
What is happening in some trusts? How is it possible that individual trusts are able to claim much more than several other trusts put together? Why is there such a big difference between the top and bottom levels?
The Committee also noted that the chief executive of the North and West Belfast Hospitals Trust made a total of 86 trips outside the North in that same four-year period, and the chief executive of the Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust made a total of 73 trips. By contrast, two chief executives from other trusts made no trips and several made less than five trips in the same period. What is going on? I represent the North and West Belfast Hospitals Trust area, and I know that there are problems associated with that area. I could talk all day about higher levels of children at risk, higher levels of people waiting for community care and occupational therapists.
I hope the Department has taken that on board. It is up to the Department to investigate and to satisfy itself that the travel, the expenses and the allowances are justified. I hope that the Minister of Finance and Personnel also takes that on board. Is there a need for all that travel and all those expenses? I am not knocking them if they bring benefits to their area.
The Committee also identified nine termination settlements totalling over £1 million. The former chief executive of the Eastern Ambulance Service Trust, who received a large settlement, moved to a new job in the Surrey Ambulance Service only one week after departure. However, there is no legal obligation on the individual to notify anyone or to repay the settlement. In effect, he took the Department and the taxpayers for a ride, even though nothing illegal took place.
I welcome the Department’s plans to introduce a new, more transparent pay system for senior executives. It is essential that the system helps to restore public confidence in the use of resources and the management of senior staff in the Health Service. However, the existing policy framework should not have prevented Departments from being more proactive, giving guidance and having overall control.
The Department did not intervene, even when it became clear that things were going wrong. That is wrong and it must stop. The disregard of pay restraint by some trusts was totally wrong and insensitive. I was astonished to find that against the background of public concern, media interest and a ministerial request, some trusts did not comply fully with the Department’s instructions. That raises concerns about where the control of trusts and boards lies.
Our reports and the report about chief executives’ pay have highlighted the need for an open and transparent system in which pay would be related to responsibilities. However, I am pleased to note that that has been implemented by the Department. The Committee has obtained a commitment to investigate the provision of leased cars and a full review of the level of travel, subsistence and personal expenses paid to senior staff. Again, I welcome that.
The Committee also advised the Department to act now to resolve the issue of poor employment contracts before any further restructuring takes place in the Health Service, and it has made a welcome commitment to do that. In addition, the Committee has identified a need concerning the Department of Finance and Personnel’s involvement in high-profile public sector pay issues as a result of the review. The Department of Finance and Personnel has undertaken to write to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, stating that it must be informed of higher-than- normal pay settlements. I welcome that, and I want to see that carried through. Perhaps we in the Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General could keep an eye on that. This issue impacts not only on the Health Service but throughout Departments.
Mr Close mentioned the need for economic appraisals. The Committee emphasised the need for an economic case to be presented for the provision of leased cars in the Health Service. Should any other Department embark on that car scheme or any similar scheme, an economic appraisal would be essential. We are not talking only about chief executives’ pay, but their subsistence allowance and cars. I was astonished to learn the amount of money that some chief executives receive each month to lease a car; it would be enough to lease a helicopter or an aeroplane.
The identification of the need for Departments to maintain overall control is of paramount importance when they fund bodies. Rather than standing back, the Departments must adopt a hands-on approach. If they discover that anything is wrong, whether the issue is raised by the Committee or by media interest, they must become involved from the start. We must restore public confidence and move away from the idea that people are lining their pockets. I do not want to sound angry, because I know that much good work is being done in the Departments, but we must move away from the perception that big money is being paid out.
We must ensure we in the Committee and the Assembly learn some lessons from the reports before us today. We must ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in the future. The work of the Public Accounts Committee is starting to restore public confidence. Committee members are stopped in the street by people who tell us that it was about time that someone did this work, because they have heard many of the stories for years. I hope that we are now working in a mature fashion. We are making Departments accountable not only for ensuring value for money but for every penny of taxpayers’ money. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware of the time allocated for this debate and your generosity in allowing the first round to go on longer than others might have done. I will keep my comments relatively brief.
I welcome the opportunity for us to bring these reports and the work of the Public Accounts Committee to the Floor of the House and to the attention of other Members and of the public at large. It is important that that be done. Great praise has been given to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team. I will add my voice to that. Their tremendous work makes our job as a Committee much easier. The reports are very well prepared and the research is extremely detailed. I have heard other Members speak with envy of the polished professionalism with which our reports are written and presented. I commend the Audit Office for that.
I also commend the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. The wonderful thing about our Committees is that a cross word is rarely spoken. That is highly commendable and reflects well on both the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. I say "rarely" because of course there is the odd argument, but nothing too contentious.
As Billy Bell said, every report has been agreed unanimously, and it is a pity that that does not hit the headlines. It is not seen, but it is good news, and it is important that we report it. I also want to commend the work of the Committee Clerk, and, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am looking in his direction. I would like to praise his team for the superb work that they do. It makes our work easy. However, that is not to say that we do not work hard to do — we do.
The Committee has uncovered some very serious scandals, a disturbing mismanagement of money, and cases of fraud during its detailed examination of different Departments. It is nothing short of scandalous and it is shocking to read those reports. Whether it is river pollution, chief executives’ pay, Irish sport horses or the spending of European money — issues that have been addressed by each Committee member — some practices are unacceptable, and the Committee is trying to put an end to them.
During the long period of direct rule, when reports were dealt with by Westminster Committees, dust was allowed to settle on those reports, and they were not given the required local interest, input and press coverage. More attention is now being paid to these reports as a result of devolution and, therefore, we can ensure that lessons are learnt and something is done.
I want to raise the issue of road safety, which the Chairperson and other Committee members have already mentioned. It is an issue that is close to my heart and it is extremely disturbing. The cost to the taxpayer of death and injury on our roads is more than £500 million, which is a huge amount of money. It reflects the cost of the loss of life, the cost of hospital services and the cost of all the different factors that arise from the lack of a proper road safety policy. I have tried to push for something to be done on that issue for many months, if not years. In the Committee we had the opportunity to quiz and interrogate the permanent secretary as to why something was not being done about that huge loss of finances from the public purse. That loss could be corrected and reduced if more care and attention were given to the issues involved in road safety.
One such issue was the decision that there should be fewer road safety education officers. When we asked why that decision was made, the response that we received was — and I am being polite and diplomatic — inadequate. Not enough priority was being given to the issue of road safety and the hurt that is involved when a mother, father, brother or sister sees a young child hurt or killed on our roads. The Committee tried to impress on the permanent secretary — the accounting officer — that priorities need to be set, and lives need to be the number one priority, ahead of money and the cost of other priorities.
So that was a good example. As a result, the Minister has agreed to appoint more road safety education officers, which is important.
I do not propose to go into detail on other areas. I wish to conclude by talking about the value of our work and where improvements could be made to render it even more valuable. I have always been disappointed that the Public Accounts Committee can close the door only after the horse has bolted, or, as was the case in County Fermanagh, been sold to the Irish Army. We look at the issue after the event. All that we, and the permanent secretaries, can do is learn from the lessons of the past. There is nothing we can do about that. However, we can expose scandals and make sure those lessons are learnt.
Almost monthly, we have public televised inquiries at which we ask the permanent secretaries to explain themselves. They are not always gentle affairs. Those inquiries should make good television and attract media interest, yet there is little press interest in those issues. I am surprised that the press do not do more to show the work of the Committee. It is good work, and it shows the public what devolution is all about.
I call on Members who are not members of the Committee to come to us. Northern Ireland is a small place; rumours are always rife. I urge them to ask the Committee to investigate matters for them; I urge the public to do the same. We are there to make sure that taxpayers’ money is well spent.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the first opportunity for the Public Accounts Committee to report directly to the Assembly on its work to date. I join other Members in paying tribute to the Chairperson of the Committee, Billy Bell, his staff, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the members of the Committee who have worked in close partnership for the benefit of the Northern Ireland public.
I value my membership of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that other Members and the public, who will follow today’s debate and examine the reports produced by the Public Accounts Committee, will see the benefits of our work.
There is more to the work of the Public Accounts Committee than bringing Departments to account for poor use of public funds in the past. It is about ensuring that lessons are learnt so that budgets — present and future — are properly spent for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. Scrutiny by the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee may be uncomfortable for departmental accounting officers and civil servants, but the message from my constituents is that they welcome increased scrutiny. The civil servants are no longer in control. Their decisions are scrutinised, Committees are monitoring their actions, and they have to follow proper procedures in the use of public money.
The Northern Ireland Audit Office now produces reports with the same frequency as it did prior to devolution. However, it was competing on the United Kingdom stage for the attention of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster. I have no doubt that the extra time for scrutiny given to those reports by local politicians with greater local knowledge has brought increased benefits to the people of Northern Ireland. They have a greater awareness of how their money is spent. Statements, and changes to current practices and policies, are more often made before accounting officers come before the Public Accounts Committee, and I welcome that.
Accountability concentrates the minds of accounting officers. Many of those changes should have happened earlier, but I welcome the current improvements. I do not wish to repeat other Members’ points so I will concentrate my remarks on two reports — one on the structural maintenance of roads and the other on the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland.
Public representatives have commented on potholes in roads and have called for new roads and bypasses, but the inadequacy of Roads Service’s maintenance programme has not been high on their agenda. However, the Audit Office report and the follow-up by the Public Accounts Committee show that current funds are being wasted and that the poor maintenance of roads has safety implications — for instance, 30% of current roads maintenance expenditure is on the patching of roads. The Department’s target for that is 10%, and authorities on mainland Britain are much closer to that target. In other words, we are firefighting.
Frequently patches are laid on top of patching. That is not good use of money. The Audit Office report demonstrated that sometimes more money was spent, over 10 years, on patching a section of road than it would have cost to relay the entire section. Roads Service is starting to understand that.
In my constituency, I drew Roads Service’s attention to the trans-European road link between Larne and Belfast where, in spite of repeated repairs, faults still occurred. I am pleased that that road was recently reinstated properly. Now visitors to Northern Ireland will not have to travel on a potholed main route that is part of the trans-European network. That money is being well spent so that we will not have to repatch continually. That example relates less to the activity of the accounting officer and the Audit Office report, but more closely to practice on the ground — I welcome that.
A significant factor that affects public expenditure on roads in Northern Ireland has been the focus on the increased costs that result from the poor reinstatement of our roads by the utilities. That too is the subject of a detailed report by the Committee. The report focused on how Roads Service should manage the safety implications of the upkeep of footpaths, and so on. I welcome the best value initiative introduced by Roads Service. It has reduced public liability claims, and introduced the UK pavement management system, which is designed to plan structural maintenance more effectively and thus optimise the allocation of funds.
As well as being critical, we must welcome constructive change. The effect of the utilities on roads is starting to be recognised at ground level. Recently I complained to Roads Service about openings in roads that utilities had dug, and I told it which bodies were responsible. Last month Roads Service wrote to tell me that those utilities have agreed to return to the areas that they have dug up and to reinstate those sections to proper standards. A proper management system that enables us to find out who has caused a fault on a road or pavement, and to ask the utility responsible to carry out the necessary improvements, avoids the need for public expenditure. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report and the work of the Committee have been instrumental in enforcing the "polluter pays" policy in respect of our roads and pavements.
This will be of increasing benefit to Northern Ireland taxpayers in the future as utilities reinstate our byways to the correct standards.
I want to turn to the Committee’s report on the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland, which highlighted the poor value of much of the work happening there. According to its figures, in one particular transport workshop it cost £127 to change three bulbs and more than £1,000 to fit a new set of front brakes. The report uncovered a payment of £95,000 that was made six months before a fire appliance was received.
Sickness levels in the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland are the highest for any fire authority in the UK. However, the absenteeism of non-uniform staff — the office staff — was of most concern to me. These people are not firefighters who have become injured or sick due to their work. There was an unacceptable level of absenteeism among office staff, and that indicates a management problem.
There was a £4 million investment in information technology, which ignored the Department of Finance and Personnel’s guidelines. Computers were purchased, gathered dust and became obsolete. That is poor use of public funds.
Interestingly, this was a case of the Public Accounts Committee investigating a non-departmental public body — an area that would not have been drawn to the attention of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. This was the investigation of a relatively small non- departmental public body, drawing the accounting officer’s attention to the fact that he is responsible for the money. The message is not only significant to that body but is applicable to all other non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland.
Through that exercise, not only were failings highlighted in the Fire Authority, but the attention of all accounting officers was also drawn to the fact that they are responsible for the funds that pass through Departments and that they must keep a close eye on the routes that the money takes. It is not a matter of blaming someone else once it leaves his or her hands.
I welcome the increased scrutiny of these bodies, which are at arms length from the Department. I welcome the assurance made by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety — an acknowledgement — that the accounting officer will be scrutinising its expenditure in future.
I urge the Statutory Committees to examine closely the areas that have been addressed by the Public Accounts Committee so far. We will move to other cases as they arise. However, areas where issues have been raised are of concern and subsequent scrutiny should be undertaken by the relevant Statutory Committees. In addition, there may be Northern Ireland Audit Office reports that the Committee may not be able to fit into its schedule, and they may involve areas that the Committees, through liaison with the Public Accounts Committee, may wish to scrutinise further themselves in order to bring benefits from the expenditure of funds in Northern Ireland.
Mr Close raised the point that the Committee was made aware of a decision to expand the Northern Ireland gas network that did not have a positive economic appraisal. I also wish to learn more about this. I am concerned when public expenditure occurs without proper appraisals, and it is something that should be followed up. Why are we spending £60 million when this does not follow an economic examination? I have concerns, and I call for the information to be published for further public scrutiny.
The Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are the Northern Ireland public’s watchdogs on public expenditure, and they would benefit from the public bringing concerns to them. An effective partnership between elected representatives, Committee officers and Audit Office staff has been developed. I hope that further information will come forward from the Northern Ireland public which will identify areas that we should carefully examine to ensure that the best use is made of taxpayer’s money in Northern Ireland.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: In common with my Colleagues, I welcome the report. That might surprise the Chairperson of the Committee, since we had some disagreement over the media spin on one report. Tremendous work has been done by the Committee in ensuring that there is no hiding place for those who would slackly administer their duties to the point that there would be loss of public funds.
I am the Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, and in our report on inland fisheries in Northern Ireland we recommended that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure carry out a feasibility study into the removal of Crown immunity. The issue of the protection of Water Service from prosecution for sewage pollution by virtue of Crown immunity was raised in 28% of the submissions received by my Committee. It was a major area of concern in our inquiry.
The matter was also raised before the Public Accounts Committee when it considered river pollution in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to see a practical option for the removal of immunity from a Crown body. I understand that the Department of the Environment is currently monitoring Whitehall consideration of the issue.
The Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee informed my Committee that the Department of the Environment had decided that there had been an extension of controls on Water Service discharges and that information on the achievement of standards is now to be published. Formal procedures have also been put in place to ensure that all pollution incidents involving Water Service are followed up with a rigour equal to that applied to pollution incidents involving other sectors. The Northern Ireland Audit Office will monitor that situation and continue to keep an eye on developments on our behalf.
That is not a bad result for two Committees dealing with an issue with no clear route to resolution. The Committees were able to reach that degree of achievement. I raise the matter to reinforce the point, already made, of the necessity, rather than the desire, for Statutory Committees to work with the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that its best skills can be employed to the best advantage in the monitoring and control of issues that affect us all.
I hope that as a result of today’s debate the word will get around and we will be able to consider putting a more formal mechanism in place so that communication with the Public Accounts Committee on these issues will be easier, thus making it more effective.

Mr David Hilditch: We are pushed for time, so I will briefly pay tribute to the Chairperson and to Assembly and Audit Office officials for their diligence and attention to the detail of the report. It is of vital importance that public money should be properly accounted for at all times. Any deliberate or unintentional abuse must be exposed, lessons learnt and procedures revamped. Mr Billy Bell pointed out that overall consideration has been and will be given to the matter so that nothing should come before the interests of the taxpayer.
That should always be the bottom line. He also referred to the value-for-money reports that were made by the Audit Office but which were left to gather dust on the shelves of Westminster. Unfortunately, that led sections of the community to target projects in order to obtain subsidies for fraudulent purposes. The revenue raised helped finance Sinn Féin/IRA terrorist operations, which were mounted in south Armagh in particular.
Clear evidence of this practice was exposed recently, with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease among sheep in south Armagh. Terrorists became millionaires, and excessive claims for livestock became so blatant that not even the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development could deny the obvious any longer. That is the extent of the problem that we have inherited.
It should be pointed out that the Committee had highlighted its concerns about the illegal movement of cattle during a previous inquiry, before the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Therefore, when the accounting officer states in evidence that he operates a policy of zero tolerance to fraud, the evidence leads me to other conclusions. I ask that an effective and efficient procedure be implemented, which includes procedures to successfully prosecute those who dishonestly apply for, or obtain, public moneys.
When reviewing the rural development programme, I was shocked to find many incidences of poor administration, inadequate appraisal mechanisms, poor marketing, insufficient business plans and ineffective monitoring systems. The accounting officer told us that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had set aside the economic appraisal guidelines in order to get schemes off the ground, despite the Westminster Public Accounts Committee’s insistence that only properly appraised projects be considered. The goalposts were moved, and, as a result, public money at best was squandered and at worst found its way into the coffers of paramilitary organisations.
A clear illustration of the misuse of public funds was the Seeconnell project where £520,000 was spent on an equestrian centre, which remains unfinished. The likelihood is that it will never be finished, and there is no possibility of any clawback. Other examples can be seen where community volunteers have been left with little or no back-up while administering £1 million schemes. It appears that spending European money quickly to meet deadlines became more important than the objectives of the projects.
Eleven of the 15 projects sampled had no economic appraisal. I welcome the Department of Finance and Personnel’s letter to all departmental and agency accounting officers, which sets out the views of the Committee and highlights the importance of appraising projects in line with departmental guidelines. Although there have been good examples of rural development programmes, I must conclude that the £51 million programme represents poor value for money.
Turning to the Social Security Agency, I want to follow up some of the points made by Mr Carrick. Social security benefits are the bread-and-butter issues of the community. The complexity and individual circumstances of each case makes calculating a person’s entitlement to income support a long-drawn-out process. Despite the growth of advice-giving agencies — and the Assembly constituency offices over recent years — during the year 1999-2000, one in eight claims for income support was wrongly calculated. During the same period, 170,000 claimants received £564 million. The level of wrongly calculated claims is unacceptable.
The figure does not take into account the people who from a sense of public spirit or pride do not exercise their right to claim benefits. Every effort must be made to reach such people. Another consideration is that people who depend on benefits are usually from the most vulnerable groups in society. The 40-page application form, which has been referred to, may act as a deterrent. I welcome the proposal to introduce a 10-page application form for pensioners, but I urge that it should be available to all claimants.
I also urge caution because the measures to combat fraud may mean further complications for genuine applicants. I note that one of the key issues, according to the Public Accounts Committee, was that applicants would almost have required a degree in administration to fill out the claim form for income support. That must be bureaucracy at its worst.
I will bring my remarks to a close in the hope that Members can raise other matters on public accounts. The timing of the report is pertinent with our citizens about to see a 7% rise in the rates to pay for the Assembly in the coming financial year and with the last round of Peace moneys due to be allocated. A clear message should be sent from the House to tell fraudsters that we will no longer turn a blind eye to their activities and to tell accounting officers that no more short cuts should be taken.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I welcome the Committee’s report. Given that the Assembly spends over £6,400 million of public money every year, scrutiny of the way in which that money is spent and of the effectiveness of that spending is important. Since we are drawing some of that money from taxes imposed by the Assembly, it is equally important that people feel that they are getting good value for money. The Public Accounts Committee has done a good job in this report by highlighting the inadequacies in some areas of public expenditure.
As one of the few non-members of the Committee to have the opportunity to speak today, I apologise that I am going to interrupt the bout of mutual backslapping that has taken place in the House. I have noted what some of the Committee members have said. Jane Morrice talked about a wonderful Committee and its polished report. Had she stayed for the next debate, she would have seen a really polished report from the Education Committee. She also spoke of how there was never a cross word spoken in the Public Accounts Committee. I cannot imagine that I would like to be the member of a Committee in which there is never a cross word spoken. Nor, if Seamus Close is a member of that Committee, do I believe that cross words are not spoken on some occasions. He compared it to the old Public Accounts Committee, which was either asleep or at the vet being neutered. The implication is, therefore, that the current Public Accounts Committee is wide awake and certainly not neutered. However, I will not pursue that any further.
While the Public Accounts Committee has done a good job in highlighting inadequacies, its weakness has been getting something done about them. Four examples of that have arisen today. Mr Dallat highlighted the question of the awarding of printing contracts by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Contracts worth nearly £500,000 were awarded without tendering. Nine other contracts, totalling around £200,000 above the lowest bid, were also awarded. However, the response from Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment officials was that it was not wrong to have appointed the person who owned the firm to the Tourist Board. It also appeared to them that there was no wrongdoing in the awarding of those contracts. If the Department can brush off legitimate and serious criticism in that way, the Public Accounts Committee does not have the teeth to deal with that issue.
Another example was the inaccuracy of social security payments. A Member pointed out that it was appalling that as many as one in 10 payments were wrong. That means hardship for some people. It also means money being spent wrongly in other cases. However, when officials from the Department for Social Development attended the Social Development Committee meeting no less than a week ago, they were still talking about the same level of accuracy, despite the Public Accounts Committee having said that it was unacceptable.
Another example was the money that was spent on New Deal’s rebranding. Contracts worth £900,000 were given without going to public tender. Does the Assembly want to spend money on branding offices and making them look flashy? The only answer the Department could offer was that New Deal had brought unemployment figures down. It could not, however, relate that fall in unemployment to the money that was spent.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has said that it has a zero-tolerance approach to fraud. However, farmers in south Armagh are walking away with millions and not being taken to court.
Mr Dallat mentioned education targets. Millions are being spent by the Department of Education on helping youngsters who have educational needs.
Despite that expenditure, the targets have again been lowered.
We must find ways to respond more effectively to a problem once it has been highlighted. Perhaps all Ministers who have a responsibility, not just the Minister of Finance and Personnel, should be here today. If the targets set by the Public Accounts Committee are not met, perhaps Departments should be told that a long hard look will be given to their next budget proposals.
It is important that the House exercises proper scrutiny. I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee on its work so far, but it will need real teeth if it is to deal with the problems that have been highlighted.

Dr Sean Farren: I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Executive to the first Assembly debate on the work of the local Public Accounts Committee. I acknowledge the good wishes of the Chairperson of the Committee to me on taking up office.
This is my first substantive debate as Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is an appropriate debate for a Minister with my responsibilities to participate in. It is a good learning exercise not only in the context of my direct ministerial responsibilities but in regard to my departmental responsibilities relating to public expenditure.
The Committee’s work has been prodigious. I express my appreciation to the Chairperson, Mr Billy Bell, the Deputy Chairperson, Ms Sue Ramsey, and other members. The Committee has shown itself to be well up to the task of holding Departments accountable for their expenditure, even though accounting officers may find it uncomfortable to be subjected to a more regular accountability process than that which existed in the past — several Members highlighted that point.
Increased accountability can be only beneficial in the pursuit of the highest possible standards of control, and of greater economy, effectiveness and efficiency in public expenditure. I stress that the Executive welcome that, because continuous scrutiny enhances public confidence in the democratic system and reinforces their ability to make a real impact on public service delivery.
I pay tribute to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and his staff in the Northern Ireland Audit Office, who provided regular reports and assistance to the Committee. The Audit Committee, under Chairperson John Dallat and Billy Hutchinson as Deputy Chairperson, provides an important oversight to ensure that the public audit is delivered in the most cost-effective way.
The Committee has been a focal point for accountability; it has brought to the public’s attention concerns that we must all address to ensure that we deliver value for money in our public services. Part of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s role is to promote effective systems for the management and control of public spending. The Department has already followed up issues that have arisen from the Committee’s work to ensure that they are resolved.
An important part of the Public Accounts Committee process is to make all Departments more aware of their responsibilities to the Assembly in their use of public funds. The accounting officers concerned must attend hearings and give account of their management and supervision of public funds. The whole process must be adhered to not only by the Departments under scrutiny but all Departments, because there are lessons to be learnt by all.
The Committee has reinforced messages for improved financial management. A benefit of local accountability is that Committee members have an in-depth knowledge of the issues concerned. That can give rise to better informed questioning together with more regular scrutiny than was possible under direct rule. The Executive have brought forward several initiatives that will improve accountability for public services. Some of them have been implemented, but others require a phased approach and are being implemented step by step. Their overall impact will, however, make a significant improvement in the open and transparent system of accountability which will apply in years ahead — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order, please. The Minister is responding.

Dr Sean Farren: The Public Accounts Committee has helped the Committee for Finance and Personnel by giving its views on accountability matters that were addressed in the legislation brought before the Assembly last year. That led to the successful passage of the Government Resource and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, which is one of the most significant developments in Government accounting in over 100 years. Its main purpose was the introduction of resource accounting, which will provide a stronger focus on outputs and hence on what we are getting from our public expenditure.
Resource accounting also provides a clearer distinction between annual short-term spending and longer-term investment in public assets and infrastructure. That will fundamentally change the basis on which the Assembly provides funds to the Executive for the delivery of public services and how the Executive account for the expenditure of those moneys.
The current financial year is the first for which resource accounts will be published. They will be laid before the Assembly in the autumn, and the Public Accounts Committee, together with all other Committees of the Assembly, will in future have annual resource accounts available to assist them with the important work of scrutinising Executive expenditure.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of my predecessor. I walk in the shadow of an exemplary Minister of Finance and Personnel, whose work in that capacity was widely acknowledged. Tribute has been paid to him from all sections of the Assembly.
Following representations and discussions with the Committee, my predecessor brought forward an important change which allows the Comptroller and Auditor General more extended rights of inspection than generally apply in the rest of the UK. He also gave an undertaking to bring forward in this session further legislation to deal specifically with audit and accountability matters.
Like my predecessor, I remain committed to the public scrutiny of the business of government, and I shall bring forward legislation to demonstrate that commitment. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am in favour of public services and effective accountability and scrutiny, which is clearly in the public interest.
While this debate is, strictly speaking, concerned with matters that fall within the ambit of the Committee, the principles of transparency, robust external audit and accountability should apply throughout the public sector. District councils spend over £400 million per year, and well over £50 million will be dispersed to councils from the Department of the Environment’s vote for 2002-03. Council ratepayers should have no less right to information and effective external audit than do the taxpayers who pay for central Government services. Accordingly, I hope that the Assembly will support the Local Government (Best Value) Bill, so that the expenditure and functions of district councils will be subject to scrutiny similar to that to which Departments are rightly exposed. It is essential that the powers of local government audit are broadened and strengthened to achieve that end.
The work of the Public Accounts Committee will extend into that area as a consolidated picture of Government expenditure is provided in future through whole Government accounts. That will give a total picture of expenditure on all public services in Northern Ireland, including local government activities.
Those significant developments will provide better- quality information, as well as improved planning and management of resources. The work of the Committee and the Audit Office will be important to the development of the new financial management regime for the public sector.
The Executive are also carrying out a review of public administration, and in that context many issues of accountability must be addressed. Our planning and control mechanisms for financial management must be constantly reviewed and enhanced, so the Committee’s work is important.
The Department of Finance and Personnel, in particular, looks forward to working with the Committee during the course of the next year. The accountability process in Northern Ireland has been, and will continue to be, enhanced by the work of the Committee. The issues highlighted in today’s debate will further stimulate work in that area.
I shall now address a number of the points and questions that were raised during the debate. Given the short time available and the level of detail required, I shall be unable to respond to all the points. However, there will be further opportunities to do so.
Mr Billy Bell and Mr Mervyn Carrick raised the important issue of fraud in some areas of public expenditure. Mr Bell made several important points about the challenge that fraud in the public sector poses to us. Fraud robs the public of valuable resources that could be used to improve public services. We must promote and insist on a zero-tolerance attitude to fraud and we must develop common working arrangements across the public sector to tackle it effectively.
We shall ensure that there is proper accountability for the resources allocated and for their actual consumption. The Programme for Government sets out specific actions that the Executive intend to take to reduce losses due to fraud. Mr Carrick also highlighted the level of losses to the public. The Programme for Government, incorporating the public service agreements with the Departments concerned, sets out the way in which arrangements will be designed to deter fraudulent or other dishonest conduct. We are committed to ensuring that public sector resources are used for their intended purposes, and that the risk of error and fraud is minimised.
Mr Bell also referred to clawback arrangements for the Industrial Development Board (IDB) following Northern Ireland Electricity’s sale of retail shops. We recognise the importance of having robust clawback arrangements in place, and the IDB, acting on guidance from the Department of Finance and Personnel, has taken remedial action. We also acknowledge that everyone can learn lessons from that case. In the case of Northern Ireland Electricity, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is taking actions to recoup the sums that are due to it. The amount is in dispute and is the subject of arbitration.
Mr Bell and Ms Morrice raised the issue of road safety. We have worked across departmental boundaries to agree a new regional development strategy and to develop a new road safety plan. The details of how those will be implemented are set out in both the Programme for Government and in the public service agreement with the Department of the Environment. With regard to the Committee’s specific concern, I am pleased to note that the Department of the Environment has appointed 10 additional road safety officers and that its annual budget for promotion and publicity was increased by 75% in the current year.
Mr John Dallat and Mr Sammy Wilson raised issues regarding the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Mr Dallat raised important points about its purchasing procedures. The Tourist Board has taken steps to address the weaknesses that were identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report. The Public Accounts Committee will also receive a report in June 2002 which will detail the purchasing contracts awarded since April 2000.
The Programme for Government highlighted the opportunity to provide greater accountability and to consider more coherent structures for delivering efficient, quality services. For example, the Executive will bring forward detailed implementation plans to improve public procurement. Those will include the policies, and organisational and procedural actions that are needed. The report will address more general concerns that the Committee has raised in the past about public sector procurement.
Seamus Close queried the conduct of economic appraisals. Accounting officers have acknowledged the shortcomings in the application of the guidance that the Department of Finance and Personnel issued on economic appraisals. Departmental officials have written to accounting officers about that. Further action to improve the matters raised will include the issue of new guidance backed by a training programme and seminars. I expect there to be a progressive improvement in the process of appraisals as an aid to decisions that the Executive may take. I thank Mr Close for his comments about my Department’s prompt action on that matter.
Mr Close also raised the matter of the North/South gas pipeline. Roy Beggs echoed his remarks. Both Members asked about ministerial directions with regard to the North/South pipeline. The purpose of the ministerial direction procedure is to ensure that the issue of value for money is highlighted by officials so that it can be taken into account fully in Ministers’ decisions. There is no question of interfering with Ministers’ political judgement on how to proceed on particular issues. The Executive were of the opinion that the pipeline project should proceed in the light of the wider strategic interests, which include the realisation of an all-island energy strategy, and the social inclusion and environmental benefits of access to greater energy choice. I acknowledge that the potential benefits of the pipeline must be weighed against the wider economic costs. Those costs are such that the accounting officer of that Department could not defend the plans on value-for-money grounds alone. However, the project will have wider strategic and political benefits. The accounting officer does not have the authority to proceed on a strategic or political basis — that is a policy matter for Ministers to judge. Therefore, the accounting officer must ask for a written direction to proceed on such projects.
Mr Close also referred to projected electricity increases. I cannot confirm any level of price change at the moment. However, any consequential adjustments to electricity costs will be a matter of judgement for the Executive. I cannot confirm whether a copy of the investment appraisal of the project can be placed in the public domain at this stage because it may contain commercially sensitive information. I trust that all Members appreciate that.
Sue Ramsey raised the issue of health and personal social services pay. She urged the Department of Finance and Personnel to write to other Departments about the wider pay issues in the public sector. I am pleased to confirm that the Treasury officer of accounts has written to the accounting officers of all Departments. Copies will be forwarded to the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I trust that I have touched upon most, though perhaps not all, of the concerns raised by Members. Further information can be provided for those who need it.
I encourage Members to follow the work of the Public Accounts Committee closely, and Members on other Committees should follow up on matters dealt with in my Department’s formal memorandum of reply to ensure that the recommendations and the views of the Committees are being dealt with in a timely fashion. That will add value to the process; it will provide a greater understanding of the financial issues involved; and it will help the overall financial management process by supporting the better delivery of public services — something to which we are all committed on behalf of our constituents. I thank Members for their patience and indulgence.

Mr Billy Bell: I would like to thank the Committee members, and others, who contributed to this useful debate. I wish to include you in that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had not been conducting your presiding officer duties, you would have taken part in the debate also.

Mr Sammy Wilson: You will not get any extra time for saying that.

Mr Billy Bell: Extra time was what I was aiming for. I do not wish to address all the issues that were raised because the Minister has already done so adequately, and I thank him for that. However, I can assure Mr Close and Sammy Wilson that to my knowledge the new watchdog has not been neutered. It has had its full course of injections, is in good health and is fully alert.
I feel a little embarrassed by some of the flattering things that have been said about me. I hope that Members who are not on the Public Accounts Committee do not think that we are running a mutual admiration society — we are running a serious Committee.
I thank the Minister for his positive response. It augurs well for the future and reflects the constructive relationship that the Committee has already built up with his predecessor and staff. I must pay tribute to the two departmental officers who most commonly serviced the Committee. One of them has now moved, but I look forward to developing a similar relationship with the new team and the new Minister.
In his reply, the Minister referred to the new audit and accountability legislation and the submission he received from the Committee. I urge him to take on board every recommendation in the report, because it has the unanimous support of the Committee. We will liaise further on the matter and will keep a close eye on it as the legislation goes through the Assembly.
Like the Minister, I believe in accountability. It is a healthy process that no one should fear. I also believe that the approach to accountability should be common across both central and local government. Speaking as a Member, I will support the forthcoming Bill on best value.
The first 18 months of the Committee’s operation has exceeded all expectations. It has investigated and reported on more than a dozen major problem areas in Departments, including the rural development programme, Health Service directors’ pay, school inspection and education performance. That is more than the Westminster Public Accounts Committee was able to do in the previous decade and shows the extent to which accountability has been improved in Northern Ireland as a result of devolution. It is my intention to maintain that impetus in the coming year.
The Committee has played a constructive role in pointing out to Departments the lessons that they need to learn to improve performance, and I have been impressed with the extent to which Departments have shown a positive response to our recommendations. One example is the promise of a more active effort to reduce public sector fraud. However, the Committee will continue to monitor the progress on our reports to ensure that these promises are fulfilled.
I want to refer to the point raised by Sammy Wilson about the award of contracts by the Tourist Board. From the report he will see that the Committee has not yet completed its consideration of this matter and it will deal with it again in the future.
The performance of the Social Security Agency has shown much improvement this year, and we hope that this will continue in the future. I thank Sammy Wilson for making those points. I also thank Mr ONeill for his points. I hope all senior public officials have now got the message that their activities are under much closer scrutiny. They will be held more accountable for the spending decisions they make and for delivering the improvements in the services that the Public Accounts Committee and the public have a right to expect.
I commend the report to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the Public Accounts Committee ‘Composite Report on Issues dealt with by Correspondence by the Committee’ (3/01/R) and of the Committee Reports (1/99/R, 1/00/R to 6/00/R and 1/01/R to 2/01/R) and the Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda of Reply (NIA 22/00, 32/00, 37/00, 51/00, 59/00, 92/00, 99/00, 27/01 and 29/01).

Common Funding Formula

Mr Danny Kennedy: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to take full account of the issues raised and recommendations made in the report prepared by the Committee for Education on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools in Northern Ireland.
As Chairperson of the Committee for Education, I am pleased to bring this report to the Assembly.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
This, the Committee’s second report, outlines our findings and conclusions regarding the proposals for a common funding formula for grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the members of the Education Committee for their assistance and their contribution to the report. Local management of schools (LMS) funding is complex, and the task of considering the consultation document — which ran to 164 pages — in a relatively short time required concentration and hard work. I also place on record a tribute to our specialist adviser and I thank the Clerk of the Education Committee, her staff and our Assembly researcher for their hard work in bringing the report into being.
The LMS funding system largely determines every school’s annual budget. There are currently seven different LMS formulae in operation: one for each of the five education and library boards, one for the grant- maintained integrated schools and one for the voluntary grammar schools. While the factors used in all the current formulae are quite similar, there are some important differences in the amounts that are available to schools under each of the existing formulae and in the values attached to individual factors in each formula. Therefore there are variations in school budgets in different sectors in Northern Ireland.
The issue of how schools are funded has generated the most requests for meetings with the Education Committee, and there have been expressions of concern regarding the matter from all sectors and all sizes of schools. The Committee, therefore, welcomed the Education Department’s consultation document, which was published in April 2001 and outlined proposals to introduce a common funding formula.
Initially it was planned to complete the consultation process by 29 June 2001 and to introduce a common funding formula by April 2002. After representations by my Committee, the consultation period was extended to autumn 2001, and the implementation date has been postponed to April 2003. Given the importance and complex nature of LMS funding, the Committee believes that that date is more realistic.
It is regrettable that the Department of Education could not provide real school-level data to the education and library boards. The absence of actual figures has made it almost impossible for respondents to be completely informed and to assess accurately the likely impact of the proposals. That has led to accusations of a lack of transparency, and therefore I welcome the Minister’s attendance at this important debate. Perhaps he will wish to respond.
I will deal with the Committee’s approach now. There was written and oral evidence from several key education organisations, which proved very helpful in identifying the main issues and concerns surrounding the proposals. The Committee believed that it was important to seek the views of the people who have to work in the current LMS funding system. We therefore discussed the proposals with several primary school and post-primary school principals. They represented a variety of small and large schools, urban and rural, as well as schools that face varying levels of social and economic deprivation.
We also looked at how schools are funded in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland and met with members of the executive working group that reviewed devolved school management in Scotland to oversee various issues, particularly teachers’ salaries. As I have illustrated, the Committee consulted on the proposals in detail and was grateful to everyone who showed such willingness to contribute, especially the school principals who took time out of their busy schedules. The evidence received has been published as part of our Committee’s report.
I now move on to our findings. I want to emphasise the importance of this matter. While the proposals may appear to be about an abstract financial formula, the outcome of any changes will directly impact on every school in Northern Ireland and how much they have to spend on teachers and providing the best education possible for our children. I am sure that many Members in the House are members of school boards of governors. They, like myself, will have experienced at first hand the difficult decisions that often have to be made, such as whether to make a teacher redundant and whether to use a part-time classroom assistant rather than a full-time one. All of those decisions have to be made to balance the books of the schools. Any changes to the LMS formula will affect all schools, and they must, therefore, be given careful consideration.
I now want to outline some of the main findings of the Committee and its conclusions. Unfortunately, in the time available, it will not be possible to cover all of the issues discussed in the report, but I hope that Members have studied the report carefully. The Committee for Education believes that the current situation where schools with similar characteristics, but in different areas or sectors, receive varying budgets is neither satisfactory nor equitable. We therefore support the introduction of a common funding formula for grant-aided schools.
The evidence received by the Committee, however, suggests that there are several issues and problems in relation to the proposals as they currently stand. Those need, therefore, to be addressed. The first issue is the likely effect on education and library board central services. The Department’s preference for a high aggregated schools budget model of school delegation will put an additional £15 million into delegated school budgets. However, there is currently no indication of where that money will come from. If the £15 million is simply removed from the education and library boards’ funding for centrally provided services such as home-to-school transport, school meals, special educational needs or curriculum support, the Committee would be concerned about the likely negative impact that that would have on schools and pupils generally and, in particular, on small schools.
While the Committee fully supports the need to target resources as far as possible into school classrooms, we recommend that if additional funding is to be delegated to schools it should be without detriment to the current levels of education and library board central services to schools. The evidence shows that there is little, if any, scope to remove any funding from the boards without that having a severe impact on centrally provided services.
The Committee also considered the current distribution of responsibilities between education and library boards and schools. The division of responsibilities should not be altered at present, but the situation should be reviewed in the light of the results of the forthcoming review of public administration.
I now want to deal with the treatment of teachers’ salaries. As Members will be aware, salary costs are the major factor in school budgets. The evidence that we received suggested that the proposals do not adequately address that issue. The current formula provides school budgets with the average costs of employing teachers, but schools are then often charged with the actual costs of their employment. To fund at average costs and charge at actual costs has created major difficulties for many schools. It appears, for example, that some schools are appointing younger teachers and more use is being made of part-time and temporary contracts simply because of school budgets.
It has also been necessary to supplement the budgets of many schools through a salary protection factor in order to protect classroom provision. The purpose of the salary protection factor is to assist schools with the cost of employing teachers in circumstances where a school does not have enough income to meet the requirements of the statutory curriculum. It is proposed to continue this system but to extend the protection factor to a greater number of schools.
While the Committee is content that the cost of teachers’ salaries should be retained in delegated budgets, we believe that the current funding arrangements create difficulties for too many schools and in some cases fail to meet the core funding requirements of schools. We are also concerned that the protection factor adds complication to the formula and may have to be applied to a majority of schools overall, thus suggesting that the basic funding arrangements for teachers’ salaries are not appropriate.
Evidence received suggested that 80% of all schools in the Belfast Board area, and 96% of primary schools in the Southern Board area, would need supplementary funding to cover teachers’ salaries under the current proposals. The Committee’s view is that teachers’ salaries may be addressed more effectively through other arrangements. We recommend that the Department of Education undertake further investigations of alternative methods before a final decision is taken.
Such investigations should include consideration of the methods currently used by Scottish local authorities. For example, Angus Council in Scotland meets the costs of teachers’ salaries in full for individual schools, enabling them to appoint the most qualified teachers irrespective of financial considerations and ensuring that the above- average salary costs do not generate budget deficits.
The Education Committee has also made several recommendations regarding targeting of social need (TSN). I emphasise at the outset that the Committee supports in principle the policy of targeting social need, and the recommendations that we have made are not intended to challenge that policy. Rather, they are intended to ensure that an appropriate level of money will be made available and that those most in need will be identified and receive adequate support.
The Committee has reservations about the amount of information currently available to inform decision- making about the most effective levels of TSN funding. The Department is proposing to increase total TSN funding from 5% to 5·5% of the total schools recurrent budget. However, the basis for this proposed increase is unclear. It is also unclear, despite the Committee’s best efforts to obtain more information, what the proposed additional 0·5% — which equates to £4 million — is intended to achieve.
The Committee therefore recommends that a more informed discussion, based on additional information on current and anticipated outcomes, should be undertaken before any change to the current level of TSN funding is made. This would enable an appropriate level of funding to be identified and funding to be targeted more effectively. This is most important, as any increase in TSN funding will reduce the level of money available to schools.
The Committee also has concerns regarding the free school meals indicator currently used to identify pupils who are socially disadvantaged. These concerns include the fact that the indicator may not identify the whole range of such pupils and the fact that it appears that many families do not take up their free school meal entitlement.
Therefore we support the view that supplementary indictors should be identified to ensure that the whole range of socially disadvantaged children is identified. The Department also needs to take steps as soon as possible to assess and maximise the take-up rate of free school meals entitlement. In the area of special educational needs, the Committee recommends that levels of educational deprivation should be funded using an indicator or indicators derived from levels of educational attainment rather than double counting the free school meal indicator. In that way, both elements of TSN funding can be targeted to meet the needs that arise from either social deprivation or special educational needs, whether those overlap for some pupils or are distinct for others.
The Committee believes that the use of end of key stage attainment tests to identify educational need is not acceptable. Those tests were not designed for that purpose, and the use of Key Stage 2 results in primary schools is unsatisfactory. Therefore we recommend that further consideration be given to the use of more robust and appropriate indicators, such as standardised testing or baseline screening, and that an appropriate indicator that identifies levels of need as soon as possible after entry into primary school be established.
The Committee welcomes the proposals to provide additional support for early years education. We have consistently argued that investment in the early years is an investment in the future. However, it would be unsatisfactory for that additional support to come at the expense of the post-primary phase of education. We recommend that the proposed additional support at primary level should not lead to a reduction of support for any other phase of schooling.
The Committee is concerned about the possible detrimental impact that the proposals for the Southern Education and Library Board’s units for children with moderate learning difficulties would have. Those proposals appear to run counter to current initiatives to include, as far as possible, such pupils in mainstream schooling. We recommend that the Department reconsider its proposals and establish whether current practice in the Southern Education and Library Board should be protected and, indeed, extended to other board areas.
Connected to landlord maintenance responsibilities, and administrative services specific to voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools, the Committee has made a number of recommendations to promote best value and funding transparency.
Thus far, I have presented the report on behalf of the Committee for Education. However, I wish to express my personal views regarding the issue of funding for Irish-medium schools and units. I do not agree with the proposal to give additional sums of money to Irish- medium schools and units within the funding formula. It is my view that all sectors must be treated equally within the formula; no sector should receive special treatment. I feel strongly that Irish-medium schools and units should be funded on exactly the same basis as all other schools — in other words, according to the number of pupils in the school, the size of the premises, the number of pupils receiving free school meals and special educational needs provision.
In considering those matters, the Committee grappled with their complexities. We were however, acutely aware that any decisions would directly affect all schools and pupils, and the services that they receive. I re-emphasise the importance of that. One witness pointed out to the Committee that equitable inputs, although laudable, do not mean equitable purchasing power for schools. The Committee, through the report’s recommendations, has attempted to improve the situation. I trust that the report will contribute significantly to the decisions that will be made on the way forward. I look forward to contributions from other Members and from the Minister and invite them to support the motion.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The issue is extremely important for Members of the Assembly, including those who are not members of the Committee for Education. The effect of this will be felt at all levels in their constituencies when the proposals are put in place.
As the Chairperson said, the present system of funding is extremely complex, and it produces very unfair results. Let me illustrate the problem. One principal wrote to us about three schools of a similar nature in his area: a controlled school where the funding was £2,165 per pupil; an integrated school where the funding was £2,601 per pupil; and a maintained school where the funding was £2,481 per pupil. That is a difference of £500 per pupil between the lowest and highest amount. They were all average-sized schools with around 500 or 600 pupils. That amounted to over £300,000 on the school budget, which is a significant difference, and it is bound to have a big impact on the school.
The Department is trying to address that problem. It is important that it be addressed. However, if we divide the cake differently we have to accept — and this is where all Members will be affected — that some schools in every constituency will lose money from their budgets, which will cause problems, and some schools will gain money. The Chairperson has already said that it is a great pity that the Department was not prepared to fully spell out the consequences for schools. However, the Department gave some figures that showed that some schools could lose up to £350,000 and some could gain up to £85,000. That is bound to have an impact on schools, especially in the short term.
One proposal which has been made — and which I am sure the Department will take on board — is that there ought to be a lead-in time of at least three years to allow schools to make the adjustment. Schools must not be hit with such big increases or decreases in their budgets, as it would be unfair.
We are told, however, that the aim behind the proposals is to have a fairer allocation of money. One proposal that is transparently not about fairness is the political preference of the Minister and his party for Irish-medium schools. It is defended on the basis that the Belfast Agreement lays down a prerogative for the promotion of the Irish language. However, it does not lay down preferential treatment for youngsters who choose to go to Irish-medium schools.
If the proposals were endorsed in full, the funding for a 200-pupil school would be about £600 more per pupil, on average, in an Irish-medium school. That would be made up of £100 for each pupil for the development of curriculum materials, £200 for additional administrative costs and over £300 for extra teacher costs. That is what the proposals state. The argument is that there are special considerations. This is not the main language which youngsters are subjected to when they are out of school. It is a second language. Contrast that with a similar group of people — those who have English as a second language. The consultation document indicates there are nearly as many such youngsters — 1,400 — going to our schools. The proposal for such pupils is not to give £600 per pupil per year for the length of time that they attend school; it is to give an allowance of £750 for two years, after which it stops.
Leaving aside the comparison with ordinary controlled or maintained schools it is quite clear that the proposal for Irish-medium schools is not driven by fairness but by the political preferences of the Minister. That must not be allowed. It was the only issue that the Committee did not agree on, and, again, it shows that this is being politically driven. Cognisance must be given to the Committee’s response and the consultation that the Minister himself carried out.
The proposal on Irish-medium education drew most criticism. Six questions were asked about extra funding for Irish-medium schools. Disagreement ranged between 34% and 52%. There are about 90 other proposals, and none of them drew anywhere near the same amount of criticism or disagreement. If the Minister and his Department are listening to the results of the consultation, and to the political voices of Unionists in the Assembly, then they must give cognisance to the opposition that there is to that proposal.
I want to look at the subject of targeting social need. The Committee made it clear that social disadvantage ought to be addressed through extra resources. However, one of the first recommendations made by the Committee was that the Department must prove, first, that the money is needed and; secondly, show what the money is to be used for and give some indication of how effective money already spent has been.
We received evidence that a House of Commons Select Committee carried out an investigation that indicated that while the money spent on targeting social need had raised standards for the people it was directed at, it had not narrowed the gap between youngsters, as standards had risen across the board. Therefore money spent on targeting social need did not seem to fulfil its purpose when the whole picture was taken into account.
We were talking about the Public Accounts Committee reports in the previous debate and the importance of looking at the effectiveness of Government spending. If more money is to go in that direction, then it must be justified. There must be some clear direction as to what will be achieved by it. If the Department cannot show that, and is simply plucking £4 million out of the air to put to this part of the Budget, then we must raise questions about that.
The Committee has made a recommendation — which is in the proposals, and I hope that the Minister will stick to it — that the money should be allocated on a per capita basis. At present it is not allocated in that way. The Belfast Education and Library Board, for example, takes the view that some youngsters who come from socially disadvantaged backgrounds should have extra money allocated to them and others should not. The result is that in the Belfast Board area those who get funding receive £525 per pupil, whereas in other board areas where money is allocated on a per capita basis — as the Department proposes — it works out at around £320, or £340, per pupil. If money is allocated because a youngster comes from a socially disadvantaged background, then all youngsters who come from such backgrounds should have access to that funding. The report makes it clear that money should be allocated on a per capita basis, and we are backing the Department on this.
There is a lobby against that proposal, but I trust that in the interests of fairness the Department will stick by it.
The Committee is unhappy that some of the money is to be allocated on the basis of the take-up of free school meals. Witnesses advised us almost unanimously that that is a poor indicator of disadvantage and, in particular, of educational need. The report details alternative ways in which funding allocations based on educational disadvantage should, and could, be determined.
I promised that I would limit my contribution to around 10 minutes. Members will take up other issues. I commend the report. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will repeat a point that you made earlier: I am sure that the Assembly accepts that, thanks to the work of our Clerks and advisers, we have presented a polished report.

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the large number of Members who wish to take part in the debate, I must ask Members to restrict their contributions to six minutes.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I apologise that after I make my contribution I will have to leave to attend another Committee. I hope to return before the end of the debate.
The distribution of education funding has been the subject of concern for a long time, and for many years my party has been calling for a common funding formula. That principle arises out of a commitment to equality of opportunity for all children to enable them to develop their full potential regardless of background or ability. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which details the duty of equality arising from the agreement, obliges the Department to check that those proposals will result in an equitable allocation of funding. I look forward to seeing an equality impact assessment of the proposals.
A key requirement of the new funding policy is to ensure that social disadvantage is addressed and that TSN funding is directed towards the schools that are most in need. It is, therefore, scarcely believable that the budget that was allocated for TSN is a mere 5%. The proposal to increase it to 5·5% is less than reassuring, because, as the Chairperson of the Education Committee said, that translates into only £4 million. As I asked before, what impact could that make?
The proposed formula to allocate 50% of TSN funds on the basis of social deprivation and 50% on the basis of educational need would result in a loss of funding by some schools with the highest level of need. That is unacceptable. Although I accept that educational need must be targeted, I am not persuaded that in doing so the use of pupils’ Key Stage 2 results is appropriate; the tests were not designed for that purpose. Further work to produce more satisfactory proposals is required.
The criteria for identifying social disadvantage should be defined clearly and should include children from families with a low income. To ensure that all socially disadvantaged children are targeted, the Department, in its calculations, should reconsider its emphasis on pupils’ entitlement to free school meals. Some children do not take up their entitlement to free school meals because of the stigma that is attached or for other reasons.
Allocation should be proportionate to social and educational factors. An open and transparent system of assessment is required that targets genuine educational need. An easy-to-administer formula is needed that is predictable in its outcome. Decisions about resources must also be based on other educational initiatives such as the curriculum review and the Burns report. Wider Government programmes are also relevant, for example, targeting social need and the forthcoming review of public administration.
There is insufficient funding for special needs children. With the development of LMS, specialised posts have disappeared and teaching for special needs children has been incorporated into the classroom. Funding is available only for children who have been statemented. The Chairperson of the Education Committee mentioned the issue of special units in the Southern Education and Library Board. That was a model of good practice, and I fear that it will be lost due to the proposals for the new LMS funding.
There is also the matter of how much reasonable adjustment has been made within the Budget to increase accessibility. For example, if mobile classrooms are in use in a school, they should be accessible to children with disabilities. I am not talking about access only through the front door but about access to the facilities and services in the classroom.
Regarding the need for equitable funding power, support for small schools is essential to promote security of funding and to enable delivery of the curriculum and effective management in those schools. The Government must recognise the degree to which this largely rural society requires and merits a distinct approach to policy. It is legitimate to expect a local Minister to move beyond the Whitehall model of Government that has failed us so dismally. For example, the British Government have a policy of giving extra funds to schools that achieve better results. Although I appreciate that it is intended to act as a motivating influence, it could have a detrimental effect on targeting social need in Northern Ireland. Consideration should also be given to the resource requirements of schools that teach children from traveller families. I advocate an additional allocation of funding for those schools.
Although I support the introduction of measures such as the premises factor, I would like to see them examined further. A major concern about LMS is that schools should not have to trade off staffing costs against school resources. The Committee is totally opposed to that. Teaching is a demanding and stressful job which is vital to our community and our children’s futures. The provision for allocating salaries must be re-examined. Teachers are an intrinsic part of the education system and, as such, are entitled to equality. The Department of Education argues that it must maintain parity with teachers’ pay in England and Wales, and I say that we should have financial parity. Give us the equivalent resources on a pro rata basis for teachers here.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member’s time is up.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: We have an opportunity to secure a more equitable distribution of funds in the education system. That in turn should target social needs and properly address the local needs of all children. I too thank the Committee Clerks and special advisers for all their work. I support the motion.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat. This is a comprehensive and polished report. I presume that we are supposed to say that at this point. There was not complete agreement in the Committee on the report — there would be something amiss if we all agreed. The Chairperson said that there was hand-to-hand fighting on occasion. We did not fight over LMS, because we had other things to fight about. However, even the witnesses had differing views on various issues. I welcome the report and pay tribute to the staff for the amount of work that they put into it and other reports.
The common funding formula will help to remove discrepancies and inequalities from the funding of grant- aided schools. The education system in the Six Counties carries the heavy baggage of division. The current selective system has contributed to the perpetuation of social inequalities. The Thatcher years inflicted on our schools the ideology of education as a market — pupils are clients, parents are customers and teachers are front-line service providers.
Some schools have had to endure chronic underfunding over several decades. Schools where two thirds of the pupils are entitled to free school meals, which is an indicator of low family income, struggle beside schools where fewer than 1% of pupils who are entitled to free school meals. Secondary schools, for example, have been severely penalised because of downward trends in demographic figures. The grammar schools take the cream of pupils, leaving the secondary schools to suffer detrimental funding.
Free school meals entitlement has been shown to be a robust indicator of socio-economic deprivation. It correlates strongly with other indicators of deprivation and is also a good indicator of educational performance. That should remain so. Teachers and managers in schools with high levels of social deprivation have told the Committee that the current 5% allocation of TSN funding does not begin to address the deficit created by the impact of poverty on their schools. Through the years there have been many demands that the TSN allocation to school budgets be increased from the original 5%. The Committee strongly agrees with that.
However, Sinn Féin disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation that TSN funding should remain at 5% pending further informed discussion. How much more informed discussion is needed? Five per cent is patently insufficient. There are Members who have not read what the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR) has written about TSN over the past number of years. They should do so. In the meantime, the TSN top slice should be substantially increased. To save time I will give an example from SACHR’s report, ‘Employment, Equality: Building for the Future’, published in 1997, which states that the TSN allocation of 5% is merely old money with a new name.
Five per cent does not begin to address the disparity between the notional costs of students from the highest and lowest social classes. Expenditure is about 64% higher for the former than for their poorer counterparts. The ability of social deprivation funding to rectify disadvantage is hindered by three factors. First, there is inconsistency in the distribution of social deprivation funds. Secondly, all schools with pupils who are entitled to free school meals should receive social deprivation funds. Thirdly, additional money per pupil should be awarded on an incremental basis to schools that have a free school meals index of 10%, 20%, and so on.
Average spending on school premises and grounds is higher in Protestant schools than in Catholic schools. Such funding should be kept under review, particularly in the context of changes in pupil numbers and the relatively low amount of money involved in TSN. According to the SACHR report, more of the school budget should be devoted to targeting social need.
Too many of the North’s schools suffer from the same poverty as the children who attend them. The Assembly must support a significant increase in TSN funding now. I support the Minister of Education and his Department in their intentions to increase TSN funding to well above 5%. The Irish National Teachers’ Organisation suggested 10%. Perhaps that is something we will not get. The Education Committee report notes that some parents do not register their children’s entitlement to free school meals, and others who live in poverty do not meet the criteria for free school meals. I support the broadening of those criteria to include low-wage families.
I direct the following remark to the Minister for Social Development: linear application of free school meals fails to reflect the impact of the group, and the neighbourhood, on a child’s educational experience.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Gerry McHugh: That is one of the reasons why the Minister of Education is proposing the TSN increase.

Ms Jane Morrice: Please draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat. That is all I have to say.

Mrs Eileen Bell: As my Colleagues have said, the report is a step forward in attempting to achieve full equity for schools. The Education Committee is, therefore, pleased that the consultation paper came out because it gave us an excuse to examine the common funding formula. Not many of us were keen on the current situation in schools. The Minister told us that there have been seven different formulae. I hope now that there will be only one — the common funding formula. As the Chairperson of the Education Committee stated in his press release, the Committee fully supports the introduction of that formula. Committee members have seen that the current situation is not satisfactory for schools, pupils or staff.
Any formula must be clearly capable of catering for the practical needs of each school, and the Committee is concerned that implementation of the formula will be difficult. The formula may eventually end up in total confusion over equality. That is one reason for considering the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee has, therefore, outlined its concerns in the recommendations in the hope that a truly equitable formula will be arrived at that will engender total confidence in all schools.
Many educational organisations highlighted points of concern affecting their own schools and sectors to the Committee. Some education and library board officers and some principals answered in a doubtful manner the important question of whether the proposals will help to improve the learning of all pupils according to their needs. One witness said that, if forced to give a one-word answer, it would be "No". Another slightly more hopeful answer was that nothing is perfect and while it is impossible to have a formula that will please everyone, the formula is a step in the right direction. That statement is close to the Committee’s attitude, but the report states that there are issues that must be addressed to ensure more satisfactory implementation.
The report is large and detailed. I do not intend to go through each recommendation. Other Members have done so, and I generally endorse their comments. I will concentrate on several issues that should be highlighted, both as a member of the Committee and on behalf of my party.
The Committee had several long discussions on the TSN position in the proposals. As the Chairperson said, the Committee fully supports this policy. However, I have many concerns about it, as do other Members. The Committee is worried that the targeting system is not always specific. It is also clear that some pupils do not claim free school meals, not because they do not need the support, but because their parents refuse to have them targeted as being in need.
The Committee therefore sees the need for a major review of the take-up process so that all pupils can benefit without feeling inferior. I fully support the recommendation that the current arrangements could be considered further. The Committee also asks if the proposed increase of 5% in TSN moneys has been considered in terms of value for money. We want to know, as other Members do, what the impact of that will be.
Integrated and Irish-medium schools already have budget problems with attracting and accommodating pupil numbers. There may be exceptional circumstances in which pupil numbers is not an appropriate criterion for funding, and not only when a school is being established. The Department should consider seriously the Committee’s recommendation that a 5% figure for enrolment growth could be substituted in place of the proposed 10%.
Members are concerned about Irish-medium schools in particular as well as integrated schools. One reason that integrated and Irish-medium schools do not develop is that sometimes they are not allowed to. Those schools must be treated more generously than in the past. The Minister has made good strides in that direction, but further work must be done in those two sectors.
I add my concern to that of other Members who said that the proposals may have a serious impact on schools with special needs education difficulties. If the Department wishes to continue to promote mainstream education for children with special needs, it must reconsider the funding for that sector.
I endorse the recommendation on the effects on education and library boards’ central services. The review of public administration is ongoing, but it will have an effect. There can be no further pressures on existing school budgets. I heartily support the recommendation that schools should be funded according to their relative need, and that includes mitigating the effects of social disadvantage.
I commend the Chairperson for keeping the Committee together on most points. I thank the Committee Clerk and staff, including the special adviser, for their commitment and work on this valuable document. The Committee has shown its concerns and its recommendations in the hope that an equitable formula will be arrived at that will engender total confidence in all schools.
I hope that the Department of Education will consider the recommendations seriously. I support the motion.

Mr Ken Robinson: I am conscious of the severe time limitations. I declare an interest as a governor of two schools, and I point out that the two schools are at opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to the LMS impact on their operation.
I welcome the opportunity to support the presentation of the Committee’s report to the Assembly, and I urge the House to support its recommendations. I also pay tribute to the Committee Clerks, our special adviser, the Committee Chairperson and my fellow members for the professional manner in which they undertook this onerous but necessary task.
The quality of evidence brought before the Committee was of a very high calibre. The enthusiasm and commitment of witnesses to improving the funding of schools, and consequently the delivery of core services, was encouraging. The report includes 30 recommendations which members felt would positively benefit schools in their task of educating our young people.
At the outset I make it crystal clear that the proposal to transfer £15 million from the general schools budget into the schools delegated budget would do a great disservice to the generally competent central services provided by education and library boards to all schools. That money should be new money, and as a possible source for some of the shortfall, the Minister should perhaps look more closely at those mysterious pockets of money which from time to time emerge from the Department of Education.
The Committee also welcomed the principle that schools of similar characteristics but in different areas or sectors should no longer continue to receive varying budgets. Such a situation is unsatisfactory, inequitable and should cease immediately.
Central to the protection of the core function of any school is its ability to deliver the curriculum adequately. However, it is in that area of operation that many schools, most of them in areas of social need, find themselves facing overwhelming difficulties. Such schools — indeed all schools — must have their core functions protected. They need adequate staffing levels to educate our children effectively, especially those who already face enormous social disadvantage. The North Eastern Education and Library Board is quoted in the report as talking about the full cost of "an approved teaching cohort".
How does the sacred cow of the current LMS structure help such children and their schools? Does it do so by driving them into serious deficits, some of which are in excess of £50,000? Again, I note from the report that 78 of the 144 schools in the Southern Education and Library Board’s primary sector are in deficit. How do a principal and his governors attack such a deficit? Do they do so by making one, two or even three members of staff redundant? Under pressure from the education and library boards and from the Department of Education itself — subtle though it may be — what is the impact of such a redundancy in a school sited, say, in a housing estate and displaying multiple deprivation factors? It leads to composite classes, the loss of invaluable experienced staff, a reliance on cheaper, younger, inexperienced staff or temporary teachers. It leads to parental dissatisfaction, followed by the removal of pupils from the school and the school’s slide into despair and perhaps eventual closure.
The reliance on average teacher cost must be replaced by the allocation of actual teacher cost to schools. Failure to do that will penalise schools which have experienced teachers — and consequently expensive teachers — more severely than schools with younger, less experienced staff. With the exception of the Department of Education, almost everyone who submitted evidence appeared to recognise that fundamental weakness in the existing arrangements.
Lest Members feel that only schools in TSN areas are ill served by the system, I cite an example from a document prepared for a board of governors and for release to parents. The school is full to capacity and has a staff of mixed age groups. The principal points out that he has £560,262 to cover his costs. His staffing costs come to £514,318, leaving him a balance of approximately £46,000. Ninety-two per cent of his budget is already eaten up by staffing costs.
He goes on to say that compared with many other primary schools, his school has again suffered from a lack of funding. The school in question is allocated little additional funding for social deprivation or special needs, and it does not usually benefit from other initiatives. That school is fully subscribed, it has good backing from the parents and it is in a "nice area". It has everything going for it, but it has less than £50,000 for its running costs.
That example illustrates the real impact of the current LMS regulations on our children. LMS is clearly not delivering at the chalk face. It is a blunt management tool that is impacting unequally on schools in different sectors. I notice from a previous statement in Hansard that Mr McHugh mentioned that it was a blunter instrument in many ways. Perhaps he will look that up and compare it with what he said in today’s debate.
In presenting the report, the Committee’s objective is to highlight the current deficiencies and inequalities. I trust that the points that have been made will help Members to focus on such factors.
TSN is an emotive subject, but the recommendations that the Committee makes will ensure that TSN moneys are targeted specifically to reduce the unequal educational outcomes. I am seriously concerned that the present arrangements may not include the whole cohort of the most needy pupils.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Ken Robinson: I am not satisfied by the Department of Education’s reliance on free school meals as an adequate indicator, despite the Minister’s restating of that stance in his answer to me yesterday.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Like the other Members, I thank and congratulate the Committee Clerk, her staff and the special adviser for their work on the report.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you explain the rotation system that you are operating for calling Members to speak in the debate?

Ms Jane Morrice: We include the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee in the round of Members to speak.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that the normal practice is for the Ulster Unionist Party to lead, followed by the SDLP, the DUP and Sinn Féin. Is there a precedent that I am unaware of?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is the normal procedure that we follow. The only time that the procedure changes is when the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson speak first and second. The round includes them. We are following that procedure. In fact, Mr Gallagher, you will be the next Member to speak.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I am very sorry if a Member was out of order. As long as I am allowed my six minutes, I would never usurp someone’s time to speak.
The report contains 31 recommendations, which have been considered seriously, and I ask the Minister to note them. I point out — as I did during the Committee meetings — that despite the arguments and debates about the common funding formula, it should never be forgotten that the priority in a school, and in any educational system, is to ensure that we always deliver top-quality education to every pupil.
I witnessed the introduction of the common funding formula in schools. At that time, it was much in demand by some principals. I am afraid that I was one of the more sceptical people. I thought that as long as I could secure my teaching staff and ensure that I could reward staff members who performed well, it was up to me and the board of governors to negotiate the add-ons that were necessary to make a school work.
That system worked effectively. People began to realise that every teacher had a growing responsibility to deliver and manage the system. It was an even greater shock to realise that schools were not equal — funding was different for all schools.
There are 31 recommendations in the report, but I wish to make only one or two points. The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), in particular, was concerned about TSN. On page 143 of the report, Mr Flanagan, Mr McArdle and Mr McCallion were keen to emphasise that they had asked for some investigation into the way that TSN is used in the school system. They wanted to know whether it was delivering and achieving what it set out to do. This was an area of dispute. Therefore the Committee suggested that we should be careful at this stage and stick with the figure of 5%. We asked for reasonable empirical evidence to justify any further funding for TSN.
We dealt with the funding for small rural schools in some detail. The Committee is keen to see how the salaries for teachers in small rural schools could be protected. There was much debate about whether teachers’ salaries should be covered by the common funding formula. The Committee was impressed with the evidence given by Angus Council. Mr Clement came from Scotland to give evidence. They introduced their system five years after we looked at ours and waited until 1997 before implementing the programme. It may be prudent to look at how Scotland — and Angus Council in particular — dealt with the issue. I make this plea because, under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we have a duty to ensure that small rural schools receive full delivery of a full curriculum. There must be equality of opportunity for all pupils, irrespective of where in Northern Ireland they live.
Ensuring that teachers’ salaries are separate and guaranteed would help small rural schools. While salaries may be included in school funding, they should be dealt with as a separate item and guaranteed as part of the funding operation. That would mean that such schools did not have to spend time debating whether retired, seconded or other types of teacher would give the school the greatest opportunity and flexibility to form consortia and clusters that could provide the full school curriculum.
I want to make a final point to support that because —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Oliver Gibson: Eighty per cent of schools with seven or fewer teachers were unable to pay teachers’ salaries within school funding. A school required up to 12 teachers to make that possible. I plead with the Minister to ensure that small rural schools receive adequate funding.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I strongly support the Department’s proposals for extra money for Irish-speaking schools. This is well justified because an Ghaeilge is the native language of the people of this island. As such, it is a key element of the cultural identity of many people in the North. Irish-medium schools play a vital role in the promotion of the language; they are a key element in its restoration, rejuvenation and resurgence. There is clear evidence that growing numbers of people wish to see their children educated in the native language.

Mr Ken Robinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Member refers to the native language. Can he prove that point to the Members?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order.

Mr Ken Robinson: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your ruling. Mr Robinson’s point was rather absurd. [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The growing numbers that choose that type of education should be given support. Language learning in all forms is extremely fulfilling, as I am sure everyone will agree. That is especially so when children learn to speak our ancestors’ tongues. Likewise, it is rewarding for teachers to see their pupils become proficient in the language — both in school and in the community.
Teaching in Irish-medium schools places extra demand on the staff and incurs extra costs — a point that was well made in Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta’s submission to the Committee for Education. It is the SDLP’s duty to ensure that those who wish to speak their native language have the full resources, teaching materials and necessary budgets at their disposal to help them along that path. Out of respect for diversity, and in the interests of fairness and justice, that same support should be made available for the development of the Ulster-Scots language, when and where there is a proven demand for it.
I am proud to request extra funding for Irish- medium schools, and I make no apology for calling on the Department of Education to ensure that the theory of parity of esteem translates into action.
One of the most disagreeable aspects of the old system was that schools were treated either as winners or losers. It is disappointing that the Department again brings up those terms in its proposals — they have no place in education. Now that an Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has been established and each Government Department is obliged to undergo an equality impact assessment, I hope that those terms will not appear in any future education publications. It is unacceptable that, under the proposals, some schools will gain while others will lose. Many schools will have to cope with a double penalty. They will have their budgets cut, which is understandable, but they may also have their services reduced because the centrally held services that come from the boards may be reduced, as the Department must find £15 million to back up the proposals. Additional moneys should be found, as we do not want to see key services being cut.
I wish to refer to the well-established link between underachievement and social deprivation. Everybody agrees that schools in socially deprived areas need extra resources so that pupils can improve their literacy and numeracy and overcome many of the other educational disadvantages that arise as a result of poverty. TSN plays a central role.
The Department plans to increase resources, but I am concerned about the way the plan proposes to distribute them. Everyone expects that schools with the highest levels of deprivation will benefit most, but according to the Department’s own admission the most difficult problems arise in schools where social deprivation is highest. Under these proposals, schools with more than 50% of their pupils from socially deprived backgrounds will derive the least benefit. This has been indicated in the submission by the Equality Commission. We need more research, discussion and debate in order to deliver TSN moneys to the children and the schools that most need them.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an díospóireacht seo agus roimh an ábhar atá faoi chaibidil, siúd is nach bhfuil Sinn Féin mar pháirtí ar aon intinn lena bhfuil sa cháipéis.
I welcome the Minister’s presence, particularly in the circumstances of a family bereavement, which should be noted. I welcome the debate generally and lend support to many of the issues raised in it. I disagree with the content and emphasis of some of the recommendations, which was made clear in the course of deliberations by Mr McHugh — often on my behalf due to my commitments on other Committees.
It is inevitable that there will be discord in a debate such as this, and the report will not necessarily be the collective distillation of all our thinking on every issue. At the outset I want to commend our Committee Clerk and her hard working colleagues, all those who took time and trouble to make submissions, our specialist adviser, and our senior education research team who serve our Committee very well in many debates and deliberations.
I support increasing TSN money substantially now — do not delay, pending discussions on its impact. I welcome the Department’s acknowledgement that 5% has not been enough in the form of its proposal to increase the amount by 0·5%. An increase of 3% would be closer to the mark, so that it can begin to bite into problems in our schools caused by social disadvantage. Mr McHugh quoted from documents from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR). Interestingly, there is a quote I want to cite:
"Social and economic disadvantage is found disproportionately among Catholics, who are 2·3 times more likely than their peers in other schools to be eligible for free school meals."
To those people who argue that there should be no increase in TSN moneys until additional information is available I ask them to collect the data. That is important, and there is a real urgency about having serious research on social need and how the money has been spent so far. However, it should not halt the march of more TSN money to schools. There is established evidence about the educational attainment of individual pupils being affected by their school environment, which includes group attitudes and expectations regarding education.
In schools where there is a high entitlement to free school meals there is the compounding effect of social disadvantage. It has been proven that the socio- economic background of parents is a more accurate indicator of a child’s academic performance than any other single indicator. One can only imagine the additional pressure that accompanies a school with 70% of children entitled to free school meals — and they do exist. I strongly feel that free school meals is as good an indicator of social deprivation as currently exists.
I want to take issue with the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee in relation to their remarks about funding for Irish-medium schools. I do not find it surprising given that neither has taken up a particularly enlightened position with respect to the Irish language generally. Both are on public record saying very unenlightened things.
Irish was once banned in the education system. It has come a long way since then. However, it must travel further. It has come a long way since the time when pupils were subject to corporal punishment for uttering "cúpla focal as Gaeilge". The Department of Education, among others, has considerable catching up to do on the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement to
"take resolute action to promote the language".
Teachers in Gaelscoleanna have additional time commitments and additional costs in translating materials, and they are often left to their own devices because teaching resources in the medium of Irish are lacking. We have often heard about the bureaucratic burden on teachers, but it is certainly heaviest on múinteoirí who must often stay after classes to translate material.
The lower pupil-teacher ratio is crucial in the immersion education system. Sinn Féin agrees with an additional £100 per pupil for Irish-medium primary schools and units. That should not be reduced to £25 per pupil for post-primary schools. We agree with developing an Irish-medium unit factor and with funding Irish-medium units in the same way as special units. We approach educational management with the same resolve and determination as we approach any other aspect of education in order to deliver the best possible education system to all our children. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Derek Hussey: First, I congratulate the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson, members of the Committee, officials and all who were involved in producing this timely report. I must declare an interest as a member of the Western Education and Library Board and vice-chairperson of that board’s finance committee.
No one in the Chamber will disagree with expanding the general principles to underpin common funding formulae in order to include mitigation of the effects of social disadvantage. I unreservedly support that basic principle. The report emphasises the need to ensure that if the common formula were implemented using the high aggregated schools budget model, additional resources of £15 million above the existing baselines would be needed to ensure that present levels of education and library boards’ central services to schools were not undermined. That is of crucial importance. Indeed, the Western Education and Library Board alone requires an additional £5·7 million in order to avoid cuts to central services.
The Committee suggested that if the additional £15 million cannot be made available, the transition period should be extended from three years to five years. It must be emphasised that merely extending the transition period will not solve the fundamental funding problem for services provided to schools directly by boards.
On targeting social need (TSN), the report recommends that further research and discussion are necessary before any changes can be made to the current 5% level of top-slicing. Many of the areas need further research.
Schools in the west would clearly benefit if top-slicing were increased to 5·5%. However, the perceived underfunding of schools in the west would be lower if TSN funding were left at 5%. The focus on funding arrangements by the Southern Board for pupils with moderate learning difficulties provides the Assembly with an opportunity to explore funding for special education in general. This is timely in light of increasing pressure to integrate pupils with special needs into mainstream schools. Recent figures suggest that spending by all education and library boards on special education has risen by 30% in the past two years.
I support the view that the proposed use of test results from Key Stage 2 is not a satisfactory means of assessing a primary school’s special education funding. A perverse incentive would arise in some schools. Would it not be more appropriate to apportion funding on the basis of the number of pupils on a school’s special needs register?
With regard to teachers’ salaries within local management of schools (LMS) arrangements budgeting, the Assembly and the Minister should agree to further investigation of alternative methods of providing schools with the actual cost of employing teachers, even though that might undermine the Department’s timetable for implementing a common formula. Is it not better to get it right first time? A careful study should be undertaken of the arrangements in Scotland for funding and the general management of schools. Scottish arrangements offer an alternative approach that appears to enjoy wide public support. Surely it is acceptable that the inescapable costs of employing teachers in schools are provided for in the formula.
Arising from its consideration of contingency funding for enrolment increases, the Committee suggests that the Department may wish to consider whether a three-year rolling average of enrolment might be used for any per capita indicator in a common formula. It is worth noting that the Burns review recommends that a three-year rolling average of enrolment be used as a basis for the LMS formula. It is also interesting to note that the Department has not yet given a clear indication for next year’s formula for the use of actual as opposed to composite enrolments. Clearly, a decision must be taken as soon as possible.
I welcome and support the Committee’s emphasis on additional funding to ensure that post-primary schools are protected and that boards can undertake to provide administrative and landlord services to voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools.
The Committee for Education’s report is an important, well-informed critique of the Department’s proposals. Acceptance of the report’s recommendation means that the basis of the common funding formula document will need to change and the proposed timetable will need to be extended. I support the report ‘Proposals for a Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools in Northern Ireland’ and trust that the Assembly will do likewise.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I was surprised as I listened to Mr McHugh. Many of the things that he seemed to be complaining about this afternoon were things that he agreed with at Committee meetings. For example, I cannot understand how he can make a statement in defence of free school meals, when in the Committee he is recorded as describing free meals as
"a stigma akin to a failure in the 11-plus".
Nevertheless, he defended that in the Chamber this afternoon.
The report made recommendations on actual teacher costs as opposed to average teacher costs. Several of the bodies that gave evidence to the Committee, particularly the education and library boards, highlighted the financial pressures that the use of average teacher costs placed on many schools. Teachers’ salaries — and I speak as one who served on a board of governors and who relied on a teacher’s salary for many years — use up the vast bulk of a school’s budget.
All sorts of problems are caused to boards of governors if they must manage a budget most of the cash of which is based on a theoretical average rather than on what it actually costs their schools. In working out a budget, which the boards of governors must do, it would be much better if governors knew that built into their budget was all the money needed to pay the salaries of their teachers. Building that in would be a much better approach to the organised planning of school budgets. It would help governors to decide where to spend the rest of the money. They would know exactly what amount was for teachers’ salaries and what exactly was left, and thus they could begin to plan to spend it.
As a teacher, I felt that Key Stage 2 tests were not designed for use as indicators of underachievement. On the contrary, they were aimed at highlighting a school’s achievements and progress. The performance of schools was judged according to the results of those tests; some were highlighted as being successful because their pupils were seen to be achieving and making progress, while others lagged behind.
A school, if it meets the Key Stage 2 test criteria aimed at determining pupils’ improvement, might be allocated fewer funds to target underachievement, especially if the test results reveal that its pupils have made progress. The amount of funds that a school receives to spend on its underachieving pupils would be cut. It would lose out, even though it might have the same number of underachieving pupils, as the same test results are used to determine school funding allocations to assist underachieving pupils.
The proposal that the pupil count should revert to the previous arrangement is to be welcomed. It was ridiculous that a school’s budget was determined not only according to the average teacher costs — which it was never certain of — but according to the school principal’s estimate of the pupil intake for the coming year. The earlier system, whereby pupil-count funding was allocated on the basis of a school population, was a clearer and more easily managed method. That was carried out in October, and a top-up was allocated if any additional pupils came to the school later. I would welcome a return to that system.
I thank everyone who was involved in compiling the report. It is a genuine and well-intentioned effort to try to bring equality of funding to schools. It is to be welcomed by the House.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Education Committee’s report and Members’ contributions. We have had a constructive and informed debate. Before making a final decision on the issue, I will consider carefully all the points made.
Funding is a critical issue for all our schools. It is on the agenda of almost every meeting that I have with school representatives, and it forms a considerable proportion of the correspondence that my Department receives. Not surprisingly, the main concern is the lack of funding, and I share that concern. Our primary and post-primary schools are underfunded, by comparison with schools in England, Scotland and Wales. I have consistently argued the case for additional funding in the Executive and the Assembly. As the record shows, that has resulted in some success, but our schools remain underfunded, and I will continue to press for further resources.
Although the amount of money that is made available to schools is an important issue, the main focus of the common funding formula is on how the available resources should be distributed. It is vital that the distribution of funding is seen to be fair. The effect of our current system of seven different formulae is that similar schools in different areas receive different levels of funding.
My key objective in introducing the common funding formula is to remove these inequities to ensure that schools of similar size and characteristics receive similar levels of funding, regardless of their location or sector.
It is reassuring that there is overwhelming support for a common formula. The issue, not surprisingly, is the make-up of that formula. As Members may be aware, my officials and I have worked closely with our education partners and the Committee in developing our proposals for consultation and in considering and responding to its outcome. This high level of co-operation and constructive participation has been helpful in ensuring that our proposals for a common formula reflect the needs of schools.
The Committee’s understanding of the key issues is reflected in the comprehensive report before the Assembly. It is heartening that so many of my proposals have been supported by the Committee and by those schools and organisations that responded to the consultation documents. The consultation exercise generated the largest response that the Department has received in recent years. It even exceeded the response to the consultation by the post-primary review body. This has been open and genuine consultation. My officers explained the proposals at 10 seminars across every board area, and most of our partner bodies organised conferences to discuss them. The analysis of the responses received has been placed on the Department’s web site for all to see.
I am pleased that the Committee’s report supports the funding principles, and I am content to accept its suggested amendment that schools should be funded according to relative need, including mitigating the effects of social disadvantage. I agree that the division of responsibilities between boards and schools can be reviewed in the light of the outcome of the review of public administration, and I note the Committee’s general endorsement of the proposals for small schools and premises. I am happy to reflect further on the proposals for landlord maintenance and vocational education and training as requested.
Some concerns have been expressed about the impact on education and library boards services if £15 million is transferred from these budgets to schools delegated budgets. I should first clarify the fact that the consultation document refers to a sum of up to £15 million. Ken Robinson, Tommy Gallagher and a number of others raised that matter. The figure was based on the amount of money required in the 1999-2000 financial year if the four boards brought the level of their age-weighted pupil units (AWPU) up to the level of the highest AWPU. The Department continues to urge boards to increase delegated funding. It is hoped that by April 2003 the disparity between the levels of delegation in boards will not be as wide.
I will also confirm that the £15 million does not necessarily have to come from a realignment of centrally managed budgets within boards. The Department will review the overall budget position in the context of the 2002 spending review and will seek additional funding from the Executive to assist the move to the common formula. We will of course accept the support of Members in that endeavour.
I remind Members of the reasoning behind this proposal. Under present arrangements, there are wide differences across boards in the levels of funding delegated to schools and the levels of funding retained centrally. Some, but by no means all, of this is due to differences in characteristics, such as higher transport costs for boards in rural areas. To achieve true common funding requires not only common funding delegated to schools but a common level of funding for services provided from the centre. Otherwise, inequalities in the support for schools will continue to exist.
Our clear priority is to increase the level of resources in the classroom, which means increasing the level of resources delegated to schools. The high aggregated schools budget (ASB) option will move a further £15 million into school budgets, money that schools would currently receive if the levels of delegation across boards were equally high. Those are the reasons the Department favours the high ASB option.
Members should therefore understand that a simple summation and redistribution of existing delegated budgets — the low ASB option — will be detrimental to schools in those boards that have higher levels of delegated funding. Their additional funding would be skewed to schools and boards with lower funding levels. Those schools would continue to benefit from higher levels of central support from the board. Provision for central services must be brought onto a common footing alongside the introduction of the common funding formula.
TSN funding was raised by Ms Lewsley, Eileen Bell, Mr McHugh, Mr McElduff, Sammy Wilson, Ken Robinson, Mr Gibson, Mr Gallagher and others, and it represents a huge issue. Our proposals for this key area have attracted much comment from the Committee, the respondents to the consultation and from Members today. Again, it is reassuring that the Committee supports the continued inclusion of a factor in the formula that seeks to recognise the additional costs incurred by schools in mitigating the effects of social disadvantage and low educational achievement.
The key issues are the level of funds to be made available and how they should be distributed. The amount allocated to TSN is a matter of judgement, balancing the needs of schools where pupils require additional support against those with few, if any, such pupils. It is essential that all schools have sufficient core funding to meet the needs of their pupils. It is proposed to increase the level of TSN funding from 5% to 5·5% of the total schools recurring funding budget. That would raise expenditure on TSN within the LMS arrangements by about £4 million. The increase is designed to facilitate the change in the TSN indicator by supporting schools in addressing low educational achievement, regardless of social background, while also ensuring that schools currently in receipt of TSN funds do not lose out. We need to monitor how effectively the funds are used, and the document outlines proposals to do that.
There is clear evidence of improvement in the performance of free school meal pupils and schools that have high proportions of pupils with entitlement to free school meals. However, we must continue to ensure that best use is made of TSN funds. The Committee has suggested some measures relating to the use of entitlement to free school meals as the indicator of social deprivation. As the report acknowledges, the issue of uptake will be researched in the family resources survey to be conducted later this year.
Arrangements for determining entitlement to free school meals have traditionally mirrored those applicable in England, and I understand that consideration is being given to extending entitlement to include families who are entitled to working families tax credit, which will extend coverage of the indicator.
Financial assistance towards the cost of school uniforms is based on the same criteria as entitlement to free school meals. Whatever indicator is used for social deprivation, it must be robust, objective and capable of being updated regularly as circumstances change. It must also be pupil-related, not least because pupils do not always attend their nearest school. That is a problem which reduces the value of census-based indicators such as Noble and Robson. Entitlement to free school meals remains the most robust indicator of social deprivation — a view widely supported by schools in the consultation. I will keep the issue under review and I will utilise more effective indicators should they become available.
A key aspect of our proposals for TSN was the inclusion of an education indicator in order to target more effectively schools with pupils who are not socially disadvantaged but are nevertheless performing below the expected level for their age. This addresses one of the long-standing criticisms of the current TSN allocation within the LMS arrangements. I recognise fully the concerns expressed with regard to my proposal to use key stage assessment results as the primary indicator of special educational need in primary schools, and I shall give careful consideration to all the alternatives suggested. As we discussed with the Committee, the difficulty is in identifying a suitable alternative that measures ability on intake, differentiates between pupils and is robust. Baseline assessments and Key Stage 1 results do not meet all these requirements. A standardised test may be developed, but that would involve additional testing and bureaucracy for schools.
I also note the point made by the Committee regarding the incorporation of a free school meals indicator within this element. The Department was aware of that issue. The suggested approach sought to reflect the close correlation between free school meals entitlement and educational performance and provide a balance for the use of Key Stage 2 results, which is an output measure. As I indicated to the Committee during our earlier meeting, I am happy to consider the issue further.
Another issue that has attracted considerable attention is the position of teachers’ salaries within LMS. I welcome the recommendation that teachers’ salaries should remain within LMS. I agree with the Committee that the removal of teachers’ salaries would undermine the principles of LMS. I note the Committee’s recommendation that my Department should undertake further investigations with a view to moving to a situation where salaries are funded.
The Department looked at the devolved school management system in Scotland, an issue raised by Mr Gibson and Mr Hussey. Our conclusion was that the Scottish system operates in an entirely different context. The introduction of a system here along those lines would require the development of a new set of arrangements including standard staffing formulae, agreed maximum class sizes in all classes and standard organisational arrangements, all of which would require careful planning and, doubtless, a new round of consultations, especially given the high level of support from schools for the current arrangements. Therefore, I intend to proceed with the proposals in the document. However, I will ask my officials to continue to examine other approaches to funding teachers’ salaries.
Members raised several other issues, and I am not sure if I will have enough time to deal with all of them. Mr Kennedy raised the issue of the release of data. I thought that it was important for the consultation to be conducted on the basis of what is best for the education of our children rather than whether a particular school receives a slightly larger or smaller budget. However, we recognised that the impact on schools is a key consideration. The document did not contain details of the outcome for individual schools, because there would be a danger of seriously misleading schools due to certain assumptions having to be made where up-to-date data are not available, and the situation may change substantially between 2000-01 and implementation in 2002-03. The document would also have become unmanageably bulky.
However, the document contained comprehensive information on the financial impact on school sectors and on a wide range of different school models, and would reflect variations in the key factors that affect school funding. This was followed on 19 June by an illustrative outcome for a large grammar school. On the same day, the Department informed all recipients of the consultation document that the values of the age-weighted pupil unit used were 1,236 in the high ASB model and 1,203 in the low ASB model. I am satisfied that that enables schools and other organisations to get a reasonably clear picture of how commonality is likely to affect them.
Mr Kennedy also raised the issue of balance between primary and post-primary schools. I want to reaffirm the commitment to increase funding for primary schools. Investment in early years should avoid costly remediation in later years. There is no doubt that this investment will assist secondary schools.
I also want to point out that the proposed skewing of resources to the primary sector has been supported by 85% of schools, with 53% strongly supporting it. Indeed, almost 50% of post-primary schools agreed to the change. I acknowledge the concerns regarding the impact on nursery and post-primary schools, but I should explain that, within a fixed amount, if one sector is to gain, another must lose. The issue is to keep change manageable.
Mr Hussey, Ms Lewsley and Mr Kennedy raised the issue of the Southern Education and Library Board’s special units. The proposals for special units took the advice provided by the education and training inspectorate into account and are designed to bring arrangements across education boards to an even footing. The Southern Education and Library Board is the only authority that allocates an additional lump sum to special units, although other boards have units that fulfil the same role. Contrary to the views expressed by those who seek to retain the lump-sum allocation, there is no evidence that the level of provision for pupils, or the extent of inclusion, is higher in the Southern Education and Library Board area than in any other area.
Mr Kennedy and Sammy Wilson also discussed Irish- medium education. I note that the Committee was unable to reach an agreement in respect of my proposals for Irish-medium schools and units, and that no consensus emerged as a result of the consultation. One funding principle is that schools should be funded fairly and on an objective basis. In so far as it is possible, allocations should be determined by using objective measurements of the factors that give rise to unavoidable and significant additional expenditure. I am satisfied that the proposals are equitable. Specialist provision in Irish-medium schools and units results in significant additional costs, and the formula must take account of those costs. The approach is in full accord with the principles upon which the formula has been developed, and it will result in funding according to relative need. Before deciding on the matter, I will consider every point that was made.
Sammy Wilson spoke about the proposals for the funding of Irish-medium schools and units. Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to assume that everyone who disagreed with the proposals did so because they felt that there should be less funding. Some objectors wanted more funding.
Eileen Bell mentioned increased enrolments. There is widespread support for basing funding calculations on the census return. That change will be introduced before the introduction of the common funding formula to facilitate its implementation. Alongside that arrangement it must be ensured that schools at which additional pupils enrol each year will have access to the additional funding that they need to provide for those pupils. As was the case when those arrangements operated in the past, cumbersome or unnecessary administration must be avoided. It was suggested that a threshold of 10% of enrolments be applied, but the Committee suggested a lower threshold. The Department is examining that proposal with its partners.
Ms Lewsley raised equality issues. The Department is considering points that the Committee and others, including the Equality Commission, made in respect of the equality impact assessment.
Ken Robinson stated that teachers’ costs could be higher if a school has staff who are at the top of the pay scale as a result of their incremental progression. Other factors include protected salaries for principals and vice-principals, and decisions by boards of governors in respect of responsibility points. It is difficult to determine genuine cases of need in the latter category. The problem of teacher redundancies will persist under any agreed staffing formula, especially when enrolment figures decrease.
Some Members may be unaware that the LMS formula tends to change each year; the common funding formula will also do that. It will need to be refined, where necessary, to adapt to new circumstances. The Department will wish to make changes manageable so that schools have the capacity to plan ahead with confidence. However, there is no reason why there cannot be fine-tuning and further developmental work on aspects of the formula in the years to come.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Minister to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I thank the Committee members and all those who contributed to the debate. I shall consider carefully all the points that were raised and shall respond in detail to the Committee’s recommendations soon.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am conscious of the time restriction. I am pleased by the response to the report, and I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I thank my Committee Colleagues for their contributions today and for helping to bring the report to the Assembly.
I will try to address some of the issues that Members raised. The Deputy Chairperson, Mr Sammy Wilson, said that the effect of the proposals would be that some schools would lose money, while others would gain. Mr Gallagher referred to the Department of Education’s description of "winners and losers". Regardless of the terms used, the importance of the decisions to be made in the creation of a common funding formula is emphasised. Sammy Wilson spoke about TSN funding, as did most contributors. He highlighted the need for accountability for the amount allocated to TSN and the way in which it is spent, and I agree with his comments.
Ms Lewsley asked what the proposed increase is intended to achieve for TSN. Mr McHugh disagreed with the view that additional information was required to inform the discussion on the appropriate level of TSN funding, and Mr McElduff called for a full percentage increase in the funding, rather than the 0·5% increase proposed. I was surprised at Mr McHugh’s comments, because he attended many evidence sessions where witness after witness questioned the 0·5% increase. The witnesses said that they did not know what the basis for the proposed increase was, or what it was intended to achieve. Hence the Committee attempted to reach some agreement that further information was needed and that further research should be undertaken to prove the need for an additional percentage increase. Indeed, in that respect Mr Gibson pointed to evidence provided by some of the witnesses, particularly those from the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Mr Hamilton and other Members also referred to the inconsistencies in evidence.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Danny Kennedy: No, I will not give way. I am sorry, but I do not have much time.
The Committee wrote to the Department on several occasions. However, it did not receive a satisfactory answer. The problem is that not enough information is available to make an informed decision on the appropriate level of funding. The Committee is not disputing that more money should be spent, but it has a duty to discharge moneys from the public purse in a sensible way.
Ms Lewsley and Mr Hamilton stated their concerns about the use of Key Stage 2 results to identify educational need. The Committee recommended that other indicators of need should be identified. I particularly welcome Mr Hussey’s contribution. He is the only Member to speak who is not a member of the Education Committee, so I thank him for his interest and his support on that issue and on the treatment of teachers’ salaries.
I thank Eileen Bell for her contribution, and for the points she made about the possible effects on education and library boards’ central services and the mainstreaming of children with special educational needs. Those are important matters.
Ken Robinson raised a key issue about the need for schools to have adequate funding for a full cohort of teachers to provide the statutory curriculum. He demonstrated eloquently that the current proposals do not address that fundamental weakness. The Committee’s recommendations are a genuine attempt to assist in solving the problem. Mr Gibson highlighted the importance of covering actual teachers’ salaries to enable small rural schools to deliver the full curriculum. Mr Gibson is well known to the Committee for his strong support of small rural schools. He represents a rural constituency, as do I. Mr Hamilton highlighted the advantages of forward planning for school principals so that they know that the actual costs of salaries will be made available to them.
The issue of funding for Irish-medium schools and units generated contributions from the Deputy Chairperson, Sammy Wilson, as well as from Mr McHugh, Mr Gallagher, Mr McElduff and others. It is clear that views differ widely, which was clear from the consultation exercise. The Minister should reconsider his proposals in the light of those differing opinions. A Member referred to the fact that I was, perhaps, unenthusiastic about the Irish-medium sector. I can confirm that. However, the issue for me is not that the Irish-medium sector should not receive equal funding, but that it should not receive special funding. I hope that I have made that clear.
I welcome the Minister’s acceptance of several recommendations. I acknowledge his attendance in the Chamber today, given that Mr McElduff mentioned that there had been a family bereavement. Regarding the Minister’s comments about delegated budgets, I want to reiterate the Committee’s support for directing resources into classrooms as much as possible. Nevertheless, I emphasise that in the current financial climate it is important not to have a detrimental impact on education and library boards’ centrally provided services.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to press hard within the Executive for further funding. However, if the practical outworking of these recommendations means that there is a deficit at any stage, even as much as the £15 million that has been outlined, it would be hugely irresponsible for the Minister to proceed. It would create a large gap in the funding of an essential service for schools. It would be almost impossible for schools to survive.
The issue of LMS funding is difficult and complex. The Committee recognises the importance of these proposals. It is acutely aware that any decision on those matters will affect all schools directly. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to consider the recommendations in detail. I look forward to receiving his full response. I urge him to look closely at the payment of actual, rather than average, teaching salaries, and in particular to give serious consideration to the Scottish reality, where that has been achieved and adequate educational services have also been provided.
( Mr Speaker in the Chair)
I thank those Members who contributed to the debate. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to take full account of the issues raised and recommendations made in the report prepared by the Committee for Education on the Proposals for a Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools in Northern Ireland.
Motion made
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker.]

Hillsborough Primary School: Capital Development

Mr Edwin Poots: A year has passed since the Assembly debated the capital schools programme budget. During that debate the Minister made complimentary remarks about the contribution that I had made. Some people described that as a kiss of death. However, I am still here. I am not particularly concerned about how the Minister describes what I have to say today — whether he finds it good, bad or indifferent — as long as Hillsborough gets a new school. That is all I am interested in.
Currently there are around 340 pupils at Hillsborough Primary School. I have raised several of the relevant issues on previous occasions in the House. I must go through them again to set the context which makes it essential that the school receive a new building.
Ten of the 14 classrooms are second-hand mobile classrooms.
Of those 10 classrooms, nine are undersized and therefore wholly unsuitable for educational use. Recently a child sustained a serious cut requiring 14 stitches while attempting to enter one of them.
There is poor insulation due to single-glazed windows. There is damp plaster and dust on the equipment, which is not an ideal environment for children, particularly those who are asthmatic. Draughts from the single-glazed windows mean that curtains are frequently drawn, leading to a subsequent reduction in lighting.
Toilet facilities in the school are deplorable. If every boy were to use the toilets during break time, they would have approximately eight seconds each to get in and out. Of the 20 staff in the school, the vast majority are female. There is one toilet for female staff.
Teachers must park their cars on the school playground, thus reducing the space available for children to play on. The school has sought to compensate that to an extent by organising two lunch periods, but the playground is still absolutely packed. There is less than one square metre in each classroom for each child.
That is the environment in which children are being educated in Hillsborough Primary School. It is a very popular primary school that delivers good results and carries out a great service in the community. There is excellent special needs support for children who require it. However, children are using a 14-classroom school that was only designed for four classrooms. That must be addressed urgently.
The South Eastern Education and Library Board has proposed amalgamating Hillsborough Primary School and Newport Primary School, and that has disappointed me. Previous work to bring new schools to Lisburn Borough by the board has been faultless. It has done its job well. In this instance, however, the board attempted to pull off a private finance initiative by doing a land exchange with a local developer. The land exchange was never going anywhere — it never had any such prospect — and just led to a delay in the application for Hillsborough to get a new publicly funded primary school.
As a means of ameliorating past mistakes, the board is trying to hasten that process to cover its tracks and has proposed the amalgamation. In so doing, the board is compounding one injustice, which is that the children of Hillsborough have had to be educated in those conditions for the past three or four years when a new school was patently required, by imposing another injustice upon the children of Newport Primary School. The families and children of Newport are very satisfied with that school. Yesterday I received a petition which only two parents were not prepared to support, parents who are dissatisfied with retaining Newport as a primary school.
Newport Primary School has over 70 pupils. I cannot argue that pupil enrolment has not fallen, but it has not fallen to such an extent that the school is on the point of closure. Ten years ago, the enrolment was 75 pupils. It has now dropped from around 100 at its peak to 74. Those figures are not alarming by any stretch of the imagination. Last year, the Minister kept open two schools in the Mid-Ulster constituency that had 25 and 26 pupils respectively. To say that a school with an enrolment of 74 pupils is not feasible is not a viable argument.
We must not concentrate on the amalgamation proposal that the South Eastern Education and Library Board has made. That proposal was put forward on the basis of an inaccurate economic appraisal and without consulting parents. Therefore we must look more closely at why Hillsborough should have a new stand-alone school. The board made a fundamental mistake in arguing that Hillsborough should be upgraded from category 3 to category 2. That should have been taken a step further. To upgrade the school to category 1 would have ensured that Hillsborough received a primary school.
I understand that it is difficult to obtain category 1 status; the definition and criteria are strictly applied. However, under the recent Lisburn area plan, approximately 76 acres of residential land have been released for development in the Hillsborough area. Planning applications have already been submitted for much of that land. An advertisement for the planning application for the most substantial area — 45 acres — was in the local paper last weekend.
Some Members may not be fully aware of development in the Hillsborough area. The most recent sale of development land in Hillsborough was of 4·7 acres, which was sold by the Down Lisburn Trust. That made approximately £4·5 million, so the land has a real estate value of up to £1 million per acre. I do not need to tell anyone that someone who is sitting on £1 million per acre will not wait long before selling. Houses will be built quickly. If we get the nod for a new school in Hillsborough in this round, many new houses will be up before the school is in place.
The chief executive of the South Eastern Education and Library Board indicated that, with a fair wind and with approval at this stage, it would probably be 2005 before the school could be opened. Therefore we need to look at current planning applications and at what the Hillsborough area requires. For example, from 76 acres with nine houses per acre, approximately 170 more children will need to avail themselves of the educational facilities available in the area. Newport Primary School currently has vacancies for 70 children, but Hillsborough Primary School has none. Therefore, by 2005, 100 children will have no school to attend unless we get the go-ahead now. In that sense, Hillsborough falls into category 1, because there is simply no room on the site to provide the facilities needed for the children. I asked the board of governors of Hillsborough Primary School how many more mobiles they could put on the site of the school. Its answer was that, at a push, one more mobile classroom could be put on the site. The educational facilities will not be able to meet the requirements of the development proposals that are in place. Hillsborough urgently needs a new school and should therefore be awarded category 1 status.
The amalgamation proposal is not in the long-term interest of the people of Hillsborough or of Newport. The Belfast metropolitan area plan is currently under consideration. After some debate, it was recommended that 60% of development should occur on brownfield sites. There is very little brownfield development land in Lisburn Borough, but there is one site. Some people may be more familiar with it than are others — it was the site of the Maze Prison. That land has been described as brownfield. It is half a mile from Newport Primary School, and as a political representative involved in the Belfast metropolitan area plan, it is fairly evident to me that that land is likely to be developed for residential purposes.
What logic is there — from a strategy perspective — in closing a school that is situated within half a mile of a proposed substantial housing development?
It was recently reported in the press that there are problems with educational facilities in Downpatrick and Saintfield — schools in those towns cannot meet current demand. There has been a call for the reopening of Killyleagh High School. We do not want to be in the same situation in five or six years’ time. We do not want to realise that we need a new school in the area having closed one only two or three years previously.
I ask the Department to consider the matter seriously and strategically and to recognise the need that exists in Hillsborough. The Department should acknowledge the injustice that has been done to the children in Hillsborough and recognise that there is a requirement for a school in the Maze area, which is currently being serviced by Newport Primary School. It should take those facts on board and make the right decision.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: It is important to say that all of the MLAs from Lagan Valley want the best education for all of the children in the constituency and that they believe that those children should have the best facilities to deliver that education. We all agree that the conditions in Hillsborough Primary School are unacceptable and that the school, in its own right, should be replaced.
I want to raise issues concerning the process employed throughout the application for the new school. The Minister should look at the important matter of consultation. In this case, proper protocol was not observed, and the parents of the children at Newport Primary School feel that their voices have not been heard and that they have not been part of the decision-making process. Both parties met with the Department, but only one party had the opportunity to meet with the Minister. There is some debate about whether both parties asked for a meeting with the Minister, but I assumed that the Minister and his Department were one body. Such a situation only adds to the lack of confidence that these parents have in the Department of Education.
People were misled about whether the application for Hillsborough Primary School could enter category 1 status. The Minister explained yesterday that the school could not meet the criteria for category 1 while the application is being processed. It worries me that emotional blackmail was used on the parents from Newport Primary School. They were led to believe that, if the schools failed to amalgamate, the application would drop from category 2 to category 3. I am also worried that even though the school may be given priority in category 3, it could still come up against much bigger competition and, therefore, the opportunity for a new school could be lost.
At a time when relations between the schools should be trouble-free, there has been a great deal of heightened tension and friction. I ask the Minister in future to look closely at the way consultations are carried out and to ensure that all voices are heard.

Mr Seamus Close: I commend Mr Poots for bringing the issue to the House and for the coherent and logical manner in which he presented a case that is beyond dispute. I find it very sad that the potential and, it is to be hoped, imminent provision of a new school in Hillsborough appears to have become a subject for division.
5.45pm
On the one hand, the teachers, governors and parents of pupils at Hillsborough Primary School feel that their new school could be delayed by the parents and pupils at Newport Primary School. On the other hand, the people at Newport Primary School feel that they are being forced towards closure by their Hillsborough counterparts.
I must emphasise the point that Mr Poots and Ms Lewsley have made — I have not come across one person in the Hillsborough area who would deny that Hillsborough Primary School is in a dire state and needs to be replaced urgently. I do not think that there is one person in the Lagan Valley constituency who would deny that. Over the past 15 years, the school has gone from bad to worse. It is a further example of how badly underfunded we were under direct rule.
To emphasise Mr Poots’s point, we can only marvel at the way in which the dedicated teaching staff have, literally, battled against the elements to provide education in the most trying circumstances. The truism "small is beautiful" can be attributed to Newport Primary School. The parents of pupils at the school wish to maintain that at all costs. They believe — rightly or wrongly — that they are being railroaded towards closure. They are angry at the lack of early consultation and the perceived "behind-the-door" manipulation of their case by what they refer to as the "greater number". They feel isolated and ignored. The parents also feel that they were forced to take up the cudgels against the Department and that they were given only a short timescale in which to collect their arguments and present their case. They want to save their small rural school.
The parents at Newport Primary School are not satisfied with the situation. No one has properly explained to them why Hillsborough cannot have a new primary school tomorrow, with Newport Primary School also remaining open. They do not see why they should be blamed if Hillsborough Primary School is in category 3 instead of category 2. Furthermore, they do not understand, given the circumstances that have been well documented, why Hillsborough Primary School is not in category 1. The parents want to see a new school at Hillsborough. They do not want to see that delayed for one moment more than is necessary. However, they demand openness and transparency.
Everyone here this evening hopes that the Minister, in responding, will answer the Newport parents’ questions about the various categories and make it clear why Hillsborough has not had a new school. Everyone hopes that, if the Minister finds it necessary to close Newport Primary School, he will explain the logic of his case.

Mr Patrick Roche: No one is opposed to a new primary school for Hillsborough. The problem arises when that proposal is combined with one to amalgamate that school with Newport Primary School, because that would require the closure of Newport Primary School.
I would like to go into detail on the issue of the lack of consultation on the proposal to close Newport Primary School. Other Members have touched on that issue. The parents of pupils at the school were not consulted on proposal 148 by the South Eastern Education and Library Board or by the school’s board of governors. The parents were not aware of proposal 148 until they met with the South Eastern Education and Library Board at the school on 17 September last year. The board published proposal 148 on 18 September — one day after it met the parents. That is conclusive proof that the meeting on 17 September cannot be regarded as a consultation with the parents on proposal 148.
In a letter to Mrs Margaret Bailie of the concerned parents’ group dated 30 November 2001, the board of governors of Newport Primary School conceded that no consultation had occurred between it and the parents. The letter stated that
"We as board of governors members understood that there was no need for us to consult with local parents as the SEELB would arrange a meeting with the parents in June 2001."
The meeting referred to in the letter did not take place until September, one day before the South Eastern Education and Library Board published proposal 148. However, the South Eastern Education and Library Board consulted the board of governors of Newport Primary School on proposal 148. That is stated in the letter from its chief executive to Mr Thomas Palmer of the concerned parents’ group dated 25 October. The letter states that
"Consultation meetings have taken place with the board of governors and staff of Newport Primary School."
Those considerations strongly show that, during the meeting on September 2001, there was an attempt to present to the parents that the closure of Newport Primary School was a fait accompli.
Those considerations are reinforced, first, by the refusal of the board of governors of Newport Primary School to bring forward the annual board and parents’ meeting scheduled for 22 November 2001. This was requested by concerned parents to facilitate discussion of proposal 148. However, the board did not reply and thus, in effect, refused the request.
Secondly, the concerned parents’ group was refused the use of Newport Primary School to hold a meeting to consider proposal 148. The principal stated that the South Eastern Education and Library Board had instructed her that the meeting must not take place in the school. The meeting of concerned parents — the public meeting — was held in the Maze community hall on 5 November, but the representatives of the South Eastern Education and Library Board, who had been invited to the meeting, simply refused to attend.
Thirdly, the South Eastern Education and Library Board delayed sending information on the board’s economic assessment to concerned parents. The delay meant that 33 days of the 56-day consultation period on the publication of proposal 148 had elapsed before concerned parents were in possession of even the minimum amount of information required to assess the economic appraisal underpinning that proposal.
Finally, I understand that the chief executive of Lisburn Borough Council has sent a letter to the Department of Education stating that the council supports proposal 148. In fact, that is not the case. Those considerations mean that the contents of a letter to Mr Thomas Palmer from the South Eastern Education and Library Board letter, dated 25 October 2001, which stated that parents’ meetings had taken place and that the response had been strongly positive are not true as far as the parents of children at Newport Primary School are concerned. They were not consulted by the South Eastern Education and Library Board, and therefore could not have given a positive response to proposal 148. The claim by the South Eastern Education and Library Board is in fact the opposite of what is the case. The response by the parents of children at Newport Primary School to proposal 148 has been almost entirely negative, and the following evidence indisputably backs that up.
First, it is supported by the results of a survey sent to parents by the concerned parents’ group to record objections to proposal 148, and which was submitted to the Department on 15 November.
Secondly, it is supported by the fact that the parents of 73 out of 75 of the children at Newport Primary School have signed a letter of opposition to proposal 148, which was sent to the Department on 12 January 2002. It is nothing short of amazing that the South Eastern Education and Library Board stated in a letter to Mr Thomas Palmer dated 19 November 2001 that
"It should be noted that the Board has more than satisfied its statutory obligations regarding consultation and publication of a proposal."
That is simply not the case. As regards proposal 148, the South Eastern Education and Library Board has acted outside the letter and the spirit of the Department of Education’s requirement.
These Department of Education requirements were set out and stated on 6 December in the context of a decision by the Department to refuse an amalgamation that would have closed a school in County Tyrone. The position of the Department is that
" there will not be approval of any proposals for closure of schools unless there has been full and open consultation with local communities."
As far as Newport Primary School is concerned, that is precisely what has not happened. This means that proposal 148 simply cannot be carried further.
I will not take up more time, but there are issues in the economic assessment underpinning proposal 148 which suggest that the whole scoring of the unquantifiable factors, for example, was not done in an arbitrary way but in a way that would produce the required result — that is that Newport Primary School should be amalgamated. In their objections to the Department the concerned parents have shown that proper scoring would result in a top score for the retention of Newport Primary School.
As well as that — and Mr Poots touched on this — questions can be raised about the number of students that will require primary-school accommodation here over the next few years on the basis of a detailed assessment of planning proposals for the area, which has been made by the concerned parents. They calculate that the position for schoolchildren has been underestimated by at least 128, and in that context they are arguing for the retention of Newport Primary School.

Mr Ivan Davis: This is a difficult discussion. In seeking money for school accommodation, this is the first time in Lagan Valley that I have encountered two conflicting interests. I want to pay tribute to the residents of the Newport area for the brochure they produced, which outlines the entire situation.
Given what has been already said — and I do not want to repeat it — in this case there is a heavy responsibility on the Minister. Approximately two years ago Members for Lagan Valley debated Ballycarrickmaddy Primary School. We met the Minister then, and he was able to produce the finance for a brand new school at Ballycarrickmaddy. In this instance there are certain options to be considered. We could continue to use the existing primary schools at Hillsborough and Newport. We could refurbish or extend Hillsborough Primary School to cater for increased capacity and retain Newport Primary School. We could replace the existing Hillsborough Primary School with a new one on the existing site to cater for increased capacity and retain Newport Primary School. We could amalgamate Newport and Hillsborough primary schools in a refurbished, extended primary school on the Hillsborough playing fields to cater for 526 pupils. Or, finally, we could build a new school on a greenfield site to replace both schools and cater for the same number of pupils.
We now come to this conflict and, as Mr Close said, it is time to start pouring oil on troubled waters, because there is division. I pay tribute to Newport Primary School, which said in its submissions that it wants to see Hillsborough Primary School going ahead, and I congratulate it on that. The difficulty arises when we come to these categories. On 17 December the two deputations came to meet the Lagan Valley Assembly Members, and, in my opinion, both got a fair hearing.
The minutes of the Newport meeting state that the Deputy Chairperson of the Education Committee, Mr Sammy Wilson, left and returned to say more or less that Hillsborough Primary School would qualify for category 1 status for funding. There is a great deal of confusion about that status and about whether Hillsborough would qualify or not. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. Ms Lewsley touched on the primary objective, which is the provision of adequate and suitable educational facilities to meet the curricular needs of the 526 children in Hillsborough of primary-school age.
The Hillsborough residents say that the boards of governors of both schools agree to the amalgamation. They also say — and this is open to dispute — that all members of staff at both schools agree, as do as most parents. They go on to say that Lisburn Borough Council, with the exception of one member, agrees. Mr Roche touched on that debatable point, which needs to be clarified, although I would not like to touch it today. Perhaps that is open to dispute. Most children from Newport and Culcavy already attend Hillsborough Primary School. Therefore, Newport Primary School has a decreasing roll, which will not be justifiable in a few years’ time. The residents go on to say that the local community scheme, which is supported by the village and the local council, will fail if amalgamation does not proceed. As I understand it, the principal of Newport Primary School, supported by the board of governors, wants amalgamation.
On the other hand, Mr Ken Robinson and I visited Hillsborough Primary School two years ago, and we shared the opinion that it was an outright disgrace. Only one of the 10 temporary classrooms has a toilet. The children from the other nine temporary classrooms have to use toilets in the main school building, and there are only seven girls’ toilets for 181 pupils and four boys’ toilets for 200 pupils. Anybody who has visited Hillsborough Primary School will say that they need a new building.
Will Hillsborough be deprived if no amalgamation takes place? The responsibility lies with the Minister. He can solve this problem, because he supplies the funding for Hillsborough Primary School. I assume that the Newport residents would be happy if he supplied the funding for Hillsborough on its own. The difficulty for Newport in later years might be that the school will not have enough pupils, although according to some statistics, planning applications indicate that it might. That is the major difficulty for the Members who represent Lagan Valley.
I ask the Minister to make a note of this. I understand that there was a consultation period, when the borough council, individuals or groups could make submissions to the Minister. If that has taken place, I have no doubt that the Minister has the facts at his disposal, and I do not think he needs anything else. I congratulate Mr Poots for bringing forward the debate. It is very timely. The Minister has all the information, and he must make a decision that will benefit the residents of that area.

Mr Billy Bell: I did not intend to speak in the debate, because some other Members and I met the Minister yesterday, and we put the message to him very clearly. I agree with what has been said. We are all concerned about Hillsborough and Newport, and I rise to ask the Minister a question. At our meeting yesterday, the Minister asked his officials whether the residents had made a request to meet with him. He was told that they had not. There seems to be a problem with consultation. At that meeting we handed you the facts from the Newport residents. I understand that a copy was left into your political headquarters. You are in possession of those facts, but my question to you is —

Mr Speaker: Can I encourage the Member to speak through the Chair, because when the Member says, "Can I encourage you", he is actually imploring the Speaker to do so. The Speaker will take on many responsibilities, but not that one.

Mr Billy Bell: Will you not take that one on?

Mr Speaker: Not that particular one.

Mr Billy Bell: Of course I am speaking through you, but I must look at the Minister when I am speaking to you, to indicate to him —

Mr Speaker: It is much better to look at him than me.

Mr Billy Bell: Is the Minister prepared to meet the residents of Newport, even at this late stage? It might help matters if he did.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As Minister of Education, one of my major concerns is the replacement of sub-standard accommodation in schools. I am conscious of the fact that, while many schools need capital improvements, the resources are simply not available to replace all defective accommodation as quickly as I would like. In the interests of fairness and equality, it has therefore been necessary to prioritise capital building schemes so that the most needy schools receive attention first.
My Department’s capital priorities list, which comprises proposals by school authorities, currently has around 160 building schemes. The highest-priority projects are contained in the first three categories on the list and can compete for funding if the economic appraisal and development proposal processes have been completed.
There are clearly defined criteria for those three categories. Category 1 deals with unmet demand and is reserved specifically for schools in exceptional circumstances where there is clear evidence that the immediate demand for a large number of additional school places cannot be met sensibly by the existing accommodation, even with temporary classrooms. The position in these cases is exacerbated by the fact that schools in the immediate area have no spare capacity. Such schemes are given priority over other projects, because a capital building scheme is the only means of providing the necessary accommodation for all the pupils. A key principle underpinning this and other categories is to erect the appropriate size of school to ensure that there is no provision in advance of need.
Category 2 deals with the issue of essential works to effect rationalisation and is reserved for schemes where capital building work is essential to facilitate the amalgamation of two or more schools, and where there is sub-standard accommodation. Schools qualifying under this criterion will have serious accommodation inadequacies, with health and safety risks.
Category 3 deals with serious sub-standard accommodation and contains the remaining high-priority schemes that my Department prioritises by an assessment of the extent of the serious accommodation inadequacies that exist in each school.
The topic for this Adjournment debate refers specifically to capital development for Hillsborough Primary School. For some time the South Eastern Education and Library Board has been carrying out a programme of replacing old sub-standard primary schools in its area with new school buildings. Recently the board has provided new modern schools in a number of areas, including west Hillsborough and south Lisburn. As part of this continuing programme to improve school accommodation, the board has been considering options for the replacement of schools in the Hillsborough area.
The permanent accommodation at Hillsborough Primary School is, as Edwin Poots has said, sub-standard and undersized and lacks many facilities. That should be set against the background of a substantial increase in the number of new housing developments in the area. To facilitate the increased demand for primary school places, over two thirds of the pupils in Hillsborough Primary School are now taught in temporary accommodation.
My Department recognises the serious nature of this sub-standard accommodation. There is no dispute about that. At the same time, enrolment at the nearby Newport Primary School is falling each year, and the school is operating at less than half its capacity, with only 61 pupils. As Newport Primary School and Hillsborough Primary School are only one and a half miles apart, the board considered that an amalgamation with Hillsborough Primary School was an obvious option for consideration. Accordingly, the board carried out an economic appraisal which examined the various options and concluded that the two schools should amalgamate in a new building.
The board was able to agree a land-swap arrangement with Lisburn Borough Council to acquire a suitable site adjacent to the existing Hillsborough Primary School on which to build a new school. The board considered that this large 2·2 hectare site would not only be sufficient for a 19-classroom school with an enrolment range of between 526 and 555 pupils, but would have scope to accommodate more pupils if necessary.
The classification of this scheme is that it has category two priority because it is a rationalisation proposal that replaces sub-standard accommodation, and capital works are essential to effect that rationalisation. The higher category 1 classification is not appropriate for Hillsborough Primary School because there must be clear evidence that there is an unmet demand in the area created by insufficient places to accommodate all the pupils. Current demand in the area is being met by a combination of permanent and temporary accommodation at Hillsborough Primary School along with the accommodation at Newport Primary School, over half of which is surplus to requirements.
The South Eastern Education and Library Board has proposed a solution to the education needs in the Hillsborough/Newport area. Its economic appraisal findings are now subject to the development proposal process, which I must decide on, and there has been considerable interest in the proposal, both for and against.
Several Members raised the matters of consultation and possible future housing development in the Hillsborough area. The main objections are that the board provided insufficient information and there was a lack of consultation with the parents and other interested parties on the proposed amalgamation. The board met with the staff and boards of governors of both schools, and the governors included parents’ representatives. There were also individual meetings with parents at both schools to explain the proposal. In addition the board met with Lisburn Borough Council, the Hillsborough Community Group and representatives of the Concerned Parents of Newport Primary School, who were supplied with an abridged version of a recently completed economic appraisal. That appraisal considered various options and recommended a new amalgamated school for 526 pupils with 19 classrooms on a site adjacent to the existing Hillsborough Primary School. This group also forwarded detailed submissions to the Department, arguing its case for the retention of Newport Primary School.
Officials from my Department met Jeffrey Donaldson, the MP for the area, and deputations from both Newport Primary School and Hillsborough Primary School. The views of Newport Primary School were taken on board as part of the development proposal process.
It is important to note that the site of the proposed new school could accommodate up to 25 classrooms, which would provide for between 706 and 735 pupils. That would easily meet the needs of all Hillsborough’s housing development proposals.
It is true that I met with MLAs from the area yesterday. It was a constructive meeting, at which I listened carefully to what was said. I have listened carefully to all the attendant points that have been made on the subject. I said yesterday that I regarded today’s debate as an important one, and that I wanted to hear what Edwin Poots and others had to say. I shall consider carefully what happened at that meeting and what has happened since. I shall take on board all the views expressed and make a decision on the matter in due course.
It is also clear from the contributions that have been made that what may happen in the coming period could present difficulties. As Ivan Davis said, it is in all our interests that we pour oil on troubled waters. I want to play my part in bringing the matter to a successful conclusion as quickly as possible. I shall go away and think about all that I have heard, and Members will be made aware in due course of how I intend to deal with the matter.
Adjourned at 6.17 pm.